User talk:Greyhood/Archive 2011 July-December

List of Russian inventions

Hello. I want to create a separate page from Timeline of Russian inventions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tempac3/sandbox

Please to assist in this glorious task of write. Tempac3 (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to create? List of inventions sorted by topic rather than by year? If so, good idea! I'll try to help.. GreyHood ^Talk 11:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And its compact format would allow to also include discoveries. Tempac3 (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, though it is more logical to include discoveries into a separate list. GreyHood ^Talk 16:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot finish the list without input from other members. 38.121.75.194 (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The list is already in a good enough shape to post it into the main space, where more people are likely to participate. Just post it there, as I've already proposed. GreyHood ^Talk 19:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Russian inventions,  Done 38.121.75.194 (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Good work! I advice to add more images to the list. I'll do it later myself if I can. GreyHood ^Talk 21:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

My concern with images is that they distract the reader from text content. This is why I strongly advice to use black and white images. 38.121.75.194 (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Need help with dates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tempac3/sandbox#Space_exploration 38.121.75.194 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Greyhood. Are you well off financially? We need to translate the titles of the rest of the work trains. I've been recommended onehourtranslation.com 38.121.75.194 (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Interesting link, thanks. The names of work trains is rather complex question, I'll see if I can do anything about that, not sure. GreyHood ^Talk 11:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Good work again! Sorry that I was not able to help. I feel like tired with my recent edit activities in other areas an really want to return to inventions and other my favourite topics, but I still have unfinished tasks to do. And in your place I'd log in and create a decent account. GreyHood ^Talk 00:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not gonna be doing that anytime soon (real life priorities). It would be nice however to work towards making the list featured (eventually). 38.121.75.194 (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Russian souvenirs

A question for you at Template talk:Russian souvenirs.   Will Beback  talk  10:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've responded there. GreyHood ^Talk 11:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

NCRUS - DAB populates places

You left comments for my two proposals at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Russia)#DAB populates places. I proposed the minimum common ground ("Localityname, Russia") at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/July#Remove Russia-specific clause and apply general rules. Hope we can at least move forward on the comma question. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll watch for the discussion. GreyHood ^Talk 12:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Aban, Russia - Five moves for Aban, Russia so far, almost one move per year. The "class" gives rise to speculations. And when someone discovers a second Aban in Russia it may go back to Aban, Krasnoyarsk Krai. I will address this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/July#Remove Russia-specific clause and apply general rules. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Good summer to you, too!

Thanks for the barnstar! It does make me feel better that the problem is not so much with my arguments as it is with people's personal tastes clouding their judgement :)

Seriously, though, no problem. We all have different views on some matters. If the proposal doesn't pass, it doesn't pass. If it does, at least I can feel comfortable knowing that I put up a good fight.

I hope you have a great vacation and will return to editing refreshed and invigorated. It goes without saying that I'll keep an eye on the assessments and will continue with my daily batches.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 11, 2011; 13:40 (UTC)

Welcome back! I hope you've enjoyed your vacation. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 1, 2011; 15:02 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Actually there is one summer month ahead and my off-wiki vacation goes on. Now I have Internet connection at the place of my summer residence and can enjoy Wikipedia as well as the sun and fresh air. GreyHood ^Talk 15:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Good for you, eh? I'll just continue rotting in my office then (enjoying the sun and fresh air only through a sealed window). Just saying... :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 1, 2011; 16:24 (UTC)

Well, I must confess I'm not on a beach with notebook and wi-fi connection.. ;) I can't enjoy the sun and the editing simultaneously, oh, alas.. GreyHood ^Talk 16:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As cruel as it may sound, knowing this does make me feel a little better :) as you may have already guessed, I'm so far not enjoying my summer all that much... oh well :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 1, 2011; 17:01 (UTC)

I suppose that summer at your latitude is longer than at mine (if only your office is not in Alaska), so I hope your chances for enjoying the sun are still high. GreyHood ^Talk 17:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Goodwin's Law

You reverted them, therefore you are a nazi: [1]. I don't know what type of investigation they are referring to, but I thought you should be aware of this despite the whole group of them having been blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, that's interesting. GreyHood ^Talk 09:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Russian gdp etc

"nominal GDP is recognizable enough term; in 2009 there was recession; the figures of nominal wages growth seem to be perfectly valid - despite internal inflation, that was still huge growth in terms of international capabilities"

If you think nominal GDP is more recognizable then ok, but it really makes no sense to call it that. It's nominal GDP converted at exchange rates.

With regard to the other two changes. The 2010 is the most up to date one. But if you're going to change it back to 2008 you should change the % back to 5%. Also 4% growth in 2010 does not sound like a recession.

But most of all the 80$ and 600$ figures are completely wack. I don't know who the idiot who wrote the story for AP is but they need a remedial course in economics. Yes, between 2000 and 2008 there was a lot of growth. About 70% in terms of per capita income in fact. But not 750%, that is simply ridiculous (actually, even accounting for inflation, which over the period was roughly 100%). 70% growth over 8 years is nothing to sneeze at. Over the same period growth in US for example was something like 10-12%. China during the same period grew by about 75%. A change of 750% implies an annual growth rate of about 28% which has never happened in the history of any country on earth in terms of real income. And the only time it has happened for nominal incomes is in cases of runaway inflation. I would just remove that sentence and replace it with numbers for per capita income from academic sources or from international organizations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, with all those typical infobox parameters and lists like the List of countries by GDP (nominal) the term seems OK and no need for further specifications.

I've fixed the figure of average growth back to 7%, thanks for reminding me of this.

Since there was recession in 2009 it was incorrect to speak about 11 straight years of growth. Though, perhaps, the sentence could be reworded to reflect more details and more recent data.

If you have better sources for income, please insert them to the article. However, this document from Rosstat shows that the average wage in Russia was 2223,4 roubles in 2000 and 17290,1 roubles in 2008 which is 670% growth in roubles. Given the fact that rouble became stronger to dollar between 2000-2008, I'd expect that 750% growth in dollar value would be normal. Yes, there was inflation etc, but when we are speaking in nominal terms, that seems normal. Also, while there was internal inflation which reduced the real income increase, the possibilities of Russia in imports and in foreign travel grew significantly. GreyHood ^Talk 15:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Taskforces

OK, here's one that doesn't fit under any of our taskforces. Any ideas what to do about it?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2011; 14:50 (UTC)

Well, since criminals are related to law enforcement and the latter is related to politics we should use the Politics of Russia task force, isn't it? GreyHood ^Talk 15:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That was my line of thought, too, but it is not obvious at the first glance and looks quite weird. Perhaps we should have a taskforce for all things legal?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2011; 16:31 (UTC)

I thought about renaming "Politics of Russia task force" into something like "Politics and law of Russia task force" or "Politics and law enforcement in Russia task force".. GreyHood ^Talk 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That could work. "Law" is probably better than "law enforcement", as it is broader and could include legal stuff that would otherwise have to be put under "science".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2011; 17:14 (UTC)

Indeed, "Politics and law" is better. If you feel we need the change (personally I'm OK without it, but that's a matter of habit), please rename the relevant pages (though, what about the bot-generated content?). GreyHood ^Talk 17:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have time for this now, but I'll add it to my to-do list for later (or, if you want to try taking care of this yourself, you are more than welcome to). I'm not sure about the bot-generated content either, but it should be easy enough to figure it out once we start digging. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2011; 17:45 (UTC)

OK, I've moved pages around and submitted an amendment request for the PP process, but I'm sure I've missed stuff. Please give the whole structure another look and let me know if you see anything that should be fixed (and you can't fix it yourself). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 1, 2011; 19:29 (UTC)

OK, I'll check it later, thx! GreyHood ^Talk 15:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for the job. I've made few fixes and assessments, and now almost everything seems alright to me. But have you submitted a request for Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Politics and law of Russia task force/Popular pages instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Politics of Russia task force/Popular pages? (btw, the military task force PP list needs enlargement from 500 to 1500 items)

Also, I've just remembered we planned to insert bot-supported article statistics tables into each task force. GreyHood ^Talk 07:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not submit a new request, but I did file a request for configuration change (asking to change the target pages). I no longer see it in the list of requested changes, so hopefully it has been processed and will take effect with the next run. I also remember requesting the change from 500 to 1500 for the military task force at the same time when I was submitting the requests for the rest of the taskforces; I'm not sure why that hadn't been processed. Anyway, the PP tool page now displays a notice saying they stopped taking new requests till November, so I guess that'll have to wait.

On the bot-supported article stats table, could you please remind me what that was about? I vaguely remember discussing it, but don't recall the details, sorry!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 8, 2011; 13:36 (UTC)

I mean making tables similar to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Russia articles by quality statistics for each specific task force. GreyHood ^Talk 17:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Guest from the Future

"Gost'ja" in Russian is plural (guest). "Gost'" is singular (guests). Although a source reports it in singular, I don't understand this edit.

"Гостья" (gost'ja) is singular feminine in Russian. Plural would be "гости" (gost'i) or, plural feminine, "гостьи" (gost'ji). GreyHood ^Talk 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, ur right! Sorry but I dont... --Crystall Ball (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruswelcome

Just so you know, when you are using this template to welcome users, you need to substitute it, otherwise this happens :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 9, 2011; 13:23 (UTC)

Ah, OK. GreyHood ^Talk 16:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Leaning Tower of Nevyansk

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

Hello, Greyhood. You have new messages at AmateurEditor's talk page.
Message added 22:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gennady

You can only move an article over a redirect when that redirect constitutes the whole editing history. "Gennady of Novgorod" has a bot edit on top of the original redirect, which requires deletion.

I have moved the article to match the naming scheme in Category:Russian saints. There are also a couple more parenthesized titles in that cat you might want to look at, but most are titled "Religionist of Foo", so it makes perfect sense to unify them all that way. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 10, 2011; 13:43 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll look at other titles, and thanks for the move and explanation. GreyHood ^Talk 13:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

IrAero

G'day from Oz; could you check the edit history of IrAero as well please? Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed that. GreyHood ^Talk 13:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Leaning Tower of Nevyansk

Greyhood, why haven't you yet reverted your reverts of my edits? The russian search results you provided on my talk page show that the tower is related to Mainz Cathedral and St. Isaac's due to the use of reinforced concrete, not an iron dome. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've responded at your talk page, sorry for the delay. GreyHood ^Talk 09:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Greyhood. You have new messages at AmateurEditor's talk page.
Message added AmateurEditor (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Greyhood. You have new messages at AmateurEditor's talk page.
Message added AmateurEditor (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Картина «Васильки» С. Осипова

• Добрый день Коллега, не мог удержаться и не пригласить вас на это обсуждение, которому предшествовало это обсуждение номинации, длившееся более месяца. Речь идёт о нравах участников в связи с обсуждением русской версии статьи Cornflowers (painting). Без комментариев. С уважением, Leningradartist (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Занятно. Спасибо, обычно я не участвую в обсуждении статей русской Википедии, но возможно присоединюсь к этой дискуссии позже. GreyHood ^Talk 10:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice job splitting the Varangian Guard article. I'm not being sarcastic. :) Alphasinus (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was planning to do this split long ago, and also to expand Varangians article. Laziness, however, prevails. GreyHood ^Talk 10:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you intend to expand the Varangians article? Alphasinus (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Translate some staff from the Russian version of the article, add more images. GreyHood ^Talk 19:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Saint Petersburg Dam

--RxS (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanx! GreyHood ^Talk 10:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Pushkin template

Template:Alexander Pushkin

I made this template for Pushkin's works. Can you take a look at it and see what you think? I'm sure it can be greatly improved. --INeverCry 01:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Great! Perhaps we may add some articles related to Pushkin's biography to a new section in the article. I'm not sure howevere whether it is a normal practice with other writers and poets. GreyHood ^Talk 10:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A "people" section and/or a "related articles" section could be added, but it might make the template a bit bulky.

Also, I removed all the red links as per Wikipedia:Navigation templates, which recommends that articles be written first.--INeverCry 17:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice work on the other writer templates. GreyHood ^Talk 13:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's another: Template:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn --INeverCry 16:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

And another: Template:Ivan Bunin --INeverCry 17:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

And another: Template:Maxim Gorky--INeverCry 22:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent move

Hi

That was a little curt. Anyway, the problem is the "Greek" part. I simply moved it back to a previously used title. The route did not go to Greece, it went to the Byzantine Empire.

While I appreciate your concerns, perhaps we can come to an agreement as to what it should be, or nom for a move proposal.

The tile that was previously used is from the primary chronicles I believe?

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I tell you again, the name of the article is an idiom and a historical term. The Russian Wikipedia article and almost all other Wikipedias' articles on that route are named using translations of the Russian phrase From the Varangians to the Greeks (unless other languages have their own specific names). Whether it is from the Primary Chronicle or not I don't remember. It doesn't matter where the route led to if we know its name and the name is a fixed idiomatic phrase. Also, the route led also to Greece as a part of the Byzantine Empire, and Byzantines were known as Greeks in sorrounding countries at that time, so your reasoning is not entirely correct.

So I kindly ask you to revert your move. GreyHood ^Talk 21:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but the point here is that in English the Greeks and the Byzantines are two entirely different things. If you are saying it is a translation from Russian, then I cannot comment, as I do not read Russian. I would rather it remain as it is, it is commonly known as the "Varangian Route" or "Varangian Road" in English books, but feel free to revert it. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

At some point of history, and specifically at the period we discuss Greeks were part of Byzantines, and the largest part. "Varangian Route" or "Varangian Road" are not the best terms since there were two major Varangian routes, the second being the Volga trade route. GreyHood ^Talk 21:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, you should understand that if the move is not uncontroversial, than WP:Move request should be made instate of moving the article right away as you wish. Cheers! GreyHood ^Talk 21:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The move was not controversial. The previous page move was against the consensus on the talk page in 2006 Talk:Varangian-Byzantine_trade_route#Title, where the consensus of three editors was that the title "Varangian-Byzantine trade route" was correct. How can you suggest that it is controversial when three editors discussed it and I agreed with them?

That is why I am not going to revert myself, it would be against the consensus of that discussion. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The subsequent discussion on that page shows that the consensus changed. GreyHood ^Talk 21:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If anything, it simply says that the largest amount were of the opinion that it should be Varangian-Byantine, fewer for Varangian-Greek, and less for the original title. I have already stated I do not mind you reverting, and that I will not as I feel it is against consensus. Is there is a particular reason, technical or another that I am unaware of, as to why you feel I should move it rather than you? Chaosdruid (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the discussion in the next section shows that the editorial consesus changed, both through talk page discussion and edit history.

And yes, thanks for the advice, I've changed the title back. Sorry for the confusion, I thought that only an admin would be able to make revert move and that if you ask yourself to do it there would be less bureaucracy. But for some reason there was a technical possibility for me to move it back. GreyHood ^Talk 22:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I've sounded curt. You are welcome to suggest a proper move request or start a new title discussion on the talk page to seek a new consensus, of course. Varangian-Byzantine trade route actually gets just about 1.5 times less google hits than Trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks and an attempt to suggest it as a new name might be not entirely without a chance. But anyway, it should be done properly, without simply changing a part of an idiomatic expression in the text. Cheers! GreyHood ^Talk 22:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, a moved page that only leaves a redir and is not subsequently edited can be moved back without any issue. I suspect that a move proposal will be in order in the future, though I would do more research before entertaining any such suggestion; there are too many factors involved, such as common English name and recentism. Anyway, I am glad it is all sorted out for now :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Bulgakov template

Template:Mikhail Bulgakov --INeverCry 20:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Johanna Beisteiner

Dear Greyhood, My article about the Austrian guitarist Johanna Beisteiner, created in July, is rated as Stub-Class. Today I added some more detailed information, fotos and references to this article. I think it is clearly better now. Could you please check the new version, tell me your opinion and rate it again? (I write you because two days ago you rated my article about the Russian composer Eduard Shafransky). Best regards,--Culturawiki (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the rating to Start-class now. It could be C or B class if you expand the article a bit more. GreyHood ^Talk 16:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Geyhood, Thank you very much! As soon as the article is expanded, I will inform you. Best regards,--Culturawiki (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Through a portage

Alphasinus, once again, do you realise that this image doesn't illustrate Varangians? It is called originally "Волокут волоком" which means "Pulling through a portage", and it doesn't say the men illustrated are Varangians? Do you see that they wear traditional Russian and Slavic white clothes with national red ornaments? GreyHood ^Talk 17:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about traditional Slavic clothes, but it's quite obvious that those are viking ships. In addition, the practise of pulling ships through portages was very characteristic of how the varangians navigated their travels in Russia.

Firstly, Slavic ships looked very similar to Viking ships (or at least they do look in modern depictions). Secondly, not only Varangians, but obviously Slavs themselves and maybe other peoples navigated in the same way. Sorry, but your choice of this picture as a lead one is blatantly wrong. It is obviously much more Slavic than Varangian. I'm removing this picture from the article. GreyHood ^Talk 08:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your claim that Slavs created similliar ships with dragon heads on the prow? In this book it says that many non-varangian locals helped pull the boats, but does that make such a picture unsuitable?.Encyclopedia of European People

Secondly, ending the lead on the Varangians article with anti-normanist theories is kinda undue pov. Anyways, anti-normanists disputed the Norse identiy of the Rus, not of the Varangians.Great Soviet Encyclopedia 1979. That Varangians reportedly were "people from the Baltic region", is a notion i've never heard before, and it sounds almost like it implies that the Varangians were ethnic Balts. All mainstream sources refer to the Varangians as Norsemen,Varangians definition and Encyclopedia Britannica does not even bother to differentiate between Varangians and Vikings.Varangians Alphasinus (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Dragon heads were not exclusive to Varangians or Vikings. According to one hypothesis, Slavs have early adopted the Varangian shipbuilding techniques, and basically the early Slavic ships, called ladya, were similar to longships in many ways. Slavs, however, navigated the East European rivers and the Black Sea even before the Varangians, starting from the 6th century, and Slavic/Varangian river-going ships were not so long as ocean-going western longships for the reason of maneuverability on the rivers. Here, for example, is an illustration of a Slavic military ladya with text from a book "История корябля" (History of ships). Also, remember that Slavs not only pulled ships for Varangians, but for themselves as well, and Slavs were a majority. GreyHood ^Talk 08:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what kinda site you were referring there, but according to a google translate, the illustration is of a ship that was used during the Rus'–Byzantine War (907). According to the Rus'–Byzantine Treaty (907) the leaders of that raid had Varangian names.... Alphasinus (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The text just tells about that war as an example of ancient Russian navy expedition, the image is not necessarily related to it. And the text in general is about Slavic ships. GreyHood ^Talk 14:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As for the Anti-Normanist theories, they are not fringe and you know it perfectly, since you should have read the article on Rus' people in Britannica. And almost all written history of Varangians in ancient Rus' is the history of Rus' people. GreyHood ^Talk 14:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Your quote from a certain Yuri Shilov about the Varangians being a band of Baltic Slavs is definately fringe. Alphasinus (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, here are some pics Google gives on request "Славянская ладья" (Slavic ladya). As you may see most modern pictures and reconstructions have dragon heads. And it is quite a stereotypical feature of ancient Slavic culture. You seems to have a very poor background in Slavic history if you don't know it, sorry. GreyHood ^Talk 14:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Varangians, or at least some of them, being Baltic Slavs is a little supported theory, but not fringe. Also, you should understand that we could speak of fringe theories only in case if the main, "non-fringe" theory has a very strong and unambiguous factual base and a vast majority of scholars support it. However, the data on the 8th-10th cc. is relatively scarce and not at all clear or conclusive, while Anti-Normanism is a centuries-long tradition in Russian historiography with many famous historians supporting it. Anti-Normanism has not been proved or disproved, and since it is a significant point of view it should be represented in the article (I agree, however that Scandinavian origin of Varangians is a primary hypothesis and should be given prominent place in the article). GreyHood ^Talk 14:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not seem to be disputed in this version of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Varangian Alphasinus (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? A sentence from your link: This legend served as the starting point for the creation of the antiscientific Normanist theory of the origin of the Russian state, which appeared in the 18th century and has been discarded because of its flimsiness. GreyHood ^Talk 14:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What i mean is that even the Anti-Normanist Soviet encyclopedia writes that the Varangians are Norsemen... Alphasinus (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Norman, you mean. Yes, because the article is very short, and they even don't explain the difference between Normanism and Anti-Normanism in detail. Note however the last sentence: In most Russian written monuments, “Varangians” as a general term for all Scandinavians was supplanted as of the second half of the 12th century by concrete names for different Scandinavian peoples— Svei (Swedes), Murmany (Norwegians)—and by the term Nemtsy, which was general for all western peoples. Up to the 18th century, the Baltic Sea was called the Varangian Sea, after the Varangians. Before the 12th century Russians didn't have any significant contacts with any non-Slavic or non-Finno-Ugric peoples from the west but Scandinavians. So the term Varangians denoted any people from over the Baltic (de-facto mostly Scandinavians), just as the term Nemtsy did it later. Also, remember that in Byzantium, from where the term "Varangian" might come to Rus', the Varangian guard was composed not only of Varangians, but also of Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic peoples, which reflects the wider meaning of Varangians, which should be reflected in the article. GreyHood ^Talk 14:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The term Varangian is probably derived from the "Varangian Guard", and is more a word than the ethnonym of a dictinct people. In English, the term is synonymous with eastern Vikings. Remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. Varangians Alphasinus (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, we should use the term correctly and reflect all relevant points of view. GreyHood ^Talk 17:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You have reverted me again, while not presenting any new arguments and perfectly knowing that sources alike that in the edit summary do not reflect the full and correct picture of who were Varangians (you do know of existence of other theories than Normanist and you do know that Varangian Guard was composed not only of Varangians). Also you have not proven that the picture you propose, which doesn't depict Varangians but Slavs, is worth for the lead and better than the picture which we know for sure depicts Varangians. How long will you continue this behavior? GreyHood ^Talk 15:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Normanist theory denies the Norse ethnicity of the Rus', not of the Varangians. It's obvious that the ships in the picture are varangian. The ethnicity of the members of the "Varangian Guard" should be adressed in that article. Alphasinus (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

1) No, Anti-Normanist claims include Varangians being not Scandinavians at all or only partially (majority) Scandinavians. And you do know that the Rus people is the most renown group of Varangians.

2) No, these could be Slavic ships. I've demonstrated it to you (and finally, please, start doing some research of Slavic history to know the basic things before editing the articles related to Slavs). Moreover, it is more likely to suppose that to be Slavic ships, because if that were Varangian ships the picture would contain some Varangians. Anyway, the lead is supposed to illustrate Varangian people not ships, do you agree?

3) No, the Varangian Guard is a very prominent part of the history of Varangians and probably the namesake for the group. We couldn't ignore the basic facts related to the Varangian Guard in the article about Varangians.

Overall, I appreciate your attention to the topic and efforts to improve the article. But your knowledge of Varangians and related subjects is obviously unsufficient, and your attempts to push one POV instead of the full complex picture is inappropriate and against Wikipedia principles. GreyHood ^Talk 16:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just pushing what mainstream sources say. Doing the opposite is original research. Alphasinus (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Judging by your choice of the picture you just push what you like to push, ignoring any sources, arguments or logic. And you use tertiary sources like encyclopedias or dictionaries. My version is based on primary sources, like the Primary Chronicle, and secondary scientific studies. Those studies give much more complex figure of the topic (and by the way even your Britannica article about Rus' people shows this complex picture too). Using serious studies instead of encyclopedias and dictionaries is a normal practice for Wikipedia, and not OR. My bad that I still haven't translated more stuff from ru-wiki with all the references, but you already know, even from your sources, that this stuff exists and you know that it shouldn't be ignored. GreyHood ^Talk 16:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

So, will you stop your non-balanced and often highly dubious edits (like that with the Slavic picture) and erroneous edits (the Primary Chronicle doesn't say that Rus' people relocated from Scandinavia)? Or we should bring more people into resolving the problem, so as to avoid further edit warring? GreyHood ^Talk 16:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Britannica Rus article both says that the Varangians are Vikings, and that the Primary Chronicle states that the Rus are a Norse people. Please read it thouroughly. Do you regard this also a "Slavic picture". I'm curious to know.

The article says that "Their origin and identity are much in dispute" and reflects different points of view in this dispute which is contrary to your approach. However this article is way too short, poor and simplistic.

The picture is called "Заморские гости". ("Guests from overseas" or "Merchants from overseas"). In the file description it is said that the picture is from the series called "Начало Руси. Славяне" ("The beginning of Rus'. Slavs". The Rus' means a land or a state in this context). This picture is often used to illustrate Varangians, because in Russia-centric context the name suggests the people illustrated are from overseas. However the ships and the people depicted might be Slavs as the name of the series suggests, or even some other people and not necessarily Scandinavians. I repeat again, that the depicted boats perfectly correspond to the common perception of ancient Russian (Slavic or Varangian) ships as they are depicted by multiple artists, shot in various movies or rebuilt in history reconstructions. Overall, this image may be used to depict Varangians (the name suggests so) but also may be used to depict Slavs if one wish so. It is not however so blatantly Slavic as the image you propose for the lead, and is even used in the lead of Russian Wikipedia article about Varangians, which is not bad in my view. However I'd prefer to use Rurik/Sineus/Truvor image ("Varangians") for the lead, at least until we create a separate article about the Invitation of the Varangians. Then we better use Roerich's "Guests from overseas" in the lead of Varangians and Vasnetsov's "Varangians" in the lead of the Invitation of the Varangians. GreyHood ^Talk 18:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, don't you see the similliarities between the boat from the picture of Rurik's arrival and the other pictures? Alphasinus (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I see, so what? Would you understand finally that Varangians and Slavs had a very close material culture, and that their boats were very similar? Vasnetsov's image is better than Roerichs because it depicts (and definitely depicts) Varangians in full view, showing their ships and their relationships with the Slavs. Also, the picture is called "Varangians" which corresponds to the name of the article. GreyHood ^Talk 18:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Your questions continue to show very poor background in Slavic topics, and your treatment and choice of sources (judging by multiple reverts of your edits in various articles by various users) seems not accurate enough. I again kindly ask you to agree to stop edit warring and to discuss your edits with other people instead of simply pushing your probably good faith, but too amateurish and insufficient views. GreyHood ^Talk 18:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask you for the one last time to stop ignoring all my concerns stated here. Your choice of the picture is wrong and your sticking to it again and again after all my explanations is very strange, to say the least. Your version contains multiple faults your are aware of, and yet you push it again and again. GreyHood ^Talk 17:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've shown you over and over again that the English term Varangians refers to the vikings of Russia. see here Even the Soviet encyclopedia states that the Varangians are "Norman warriors". Why are you so obsessed with disaccosiate the Varangians with the Norsemen? Are you trying to imply that Rus were a mystical Slavic group of Varangians or what? Please stop doing original research. What do you really learn in Russian schools about this? Alphasinus (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

1) I'm not doing original research, I'm just supporting the full spectre of views instead of one simplistic POV of yours which reflects a very poor knowledge of the subject.

2) I'm not trying to disaccosiate the Varangians with the Norsemen. I just oppose your POVish attempts to associate Varangians exclusively with the Norsemen.

3) You are perfectly aware that the term Varangians came to English from Greek and Russian, and in both cases the term had wider meaning than Eastern Vikings (non-Scandinavian peoples in the Varangian Guard, non-Scandinavian theories of Varangian origin or theories of wider application of the term). We can't ignore the history of the term, nor its usage in the countries which history is connected with Varangians.

4) You fail to recognize the logic that if Rus' people were the most prominent group of Varangians and the origin of Rus' people is disputed than the origin of Varangians is also disputed.

5) You stick to the Slavic picture despite I've shown it is much more Slavic than Varangian and that there are better pictures which for sure depict Varangians or at least are not so blatantly Slavic. GreyHood ^Talk 18:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

1)That Varangians are "people from the "Baltic region is original research.

2)The word "Turkey" is both associated with a country and with a bird. But we don't merge the articles for that reason. Varangians in english is the word for Eastern vikings, as i've shown a number of times.See here

3)In general, the word Varangian means eastern vikings. A you might know, there is a page called Varangian (disambiguation) which i've tried to link to a number of times from the article, although you remove it every time you edit.

4)The people who dispute the origins of the Rus don't believe that the Rus were Varangians at all.

5)The present picture is better since the varangians are more than just the story of Rurik. The boats in what you call the "Slavic picture", are obviously Varangian, look at the similiarty with the boats from the invitation picture. It's the same. Alphasinus (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

1) No. Russian wiki article contains multiple references to support the claim that Varangians are "people from the "Baltic region".

2) Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and moreover, it is not a dictionary which gives only primary or limited meanings of words.

3) It makes sense to insert dab links at the top of the page when different items with the same name have similar level of significance. Varangians are much more significant than other items.

4) No, not necessarily. And my advice to you is to start drawing your knowledge of the topic from a wider range of sources than Britannica.

5) I've already explained that the boats on the picture are just typical boats (ladyas) of that era as depicted in modern times, and might be both Slavic and Varangian. You are ignoring my arguments and even the pictures which I've given to you as a proof. Claiming that the picture which shows Slavs with some boats ( which have no ethnicity) is better for the lead of Varangians than the picture which definitely show Varangians, their boats and their relationships with the Slavs is absurd. GreyHood ^Talk 11:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1) I presume you've been pushing original research on the Russian version as well then?

4) More sources

5) How does the picture from a random webpage prove anything? Why is that boat Slavic and not Scandinavian? Where is the archeological evidence? And why does a white robe proove that the people in the portage painting are Slavic? Alphasinus (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1) Assume good faith. I've never edited the Russian article and this is not OR.

4) Please start reading serious scholar works instead of the first google links you get. Unfortunately, though, most of the works I speak about are in Russian.

5) I've given you a link to a Russian book on ship history and a google link to multiple pictures called "Slavic ladya" with dragon heads. Stop waging war on reality. GreyHood ^Talk 15:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletions

Well, you know what the reason is... G5. I'll take a look. Thanks for finding them!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2011; 18:26 (UTC)

Nanotechnology industry

Hello! I'm now finally back at work :) A question: do you think it's reasonable to create Nanotechnology industry in Russia, even though the industry is dominated by Rusnano? Nanobear (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see you again! Yes, I think we need the Nanotechnology industry in Russia article. Rusnano is not the only nanotech company in Russia, it's just the largest and leading, working on each particular project in partnership with smaller project-specific companies. GreyHood ^Talk 14:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I started working on the article at User:Nanobear/NanoRus. Do you happen to know any other notable Russian nanotechnology companies besides NT-MTD and Optogan that should be highlighted? Nanobear (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitronics and probably some other companies mentioned in Rusnano releases. GreyHood ^Talk 17:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A. K. Tolstoy

I've nominated Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy for good article status. I think it's every bit as good as the Anton Chekhov article (or better).--INeverCry 18:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ivan Bunin

I've also nominated Ivan Bunin for good article status.--INeverCry 20:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian#Closing straw poll

Hi Greyhood. Because you participated at Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian#Convenience header (permanent link), you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian#Closing straw poll. Administrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) has reviewed the discussion and has opened a straw poll seeking clarification about several issues before he closes the discussion. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Vasily Berkov

Hello Greyhood, Thanks for your interest and for the time you have spent in assessing the article and in categorizing it for the Russia Project. For long almost nothing was known in The Netherlands known about Vasily. This because of the Cold War, the language barrier and because internet did not exist. Thanks to internet we recently discovered the biographies. It was motivation for Berkhof (2011) to hire a research intstituut to find his professional record. That is all that is known at the moment. Hopefully the English Wikipedia article will bring him under Russian attention one day -sooner or later. Because of language and geography we have reached our research limitations. Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the article! Also, you just have given me an idea to try to create a special category for WP:RUSSIA articles without Russian interwikies (corresponding Russian articles). GreyHood ^Talk 08:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Greyhood, Sounds good!! Thanks! Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Oleksandr Bilash

Hi Greyhood! Actually Oleksandr Bilash was a renowned Ukrainian composer, not Russian. I think it would be better if you change project tag. Please! :). Regards, Semimartingale (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that some of his creations are related to Russia, and he was active when Ukraine and Russia were one country. So I just added WP:UKRAINE tag as well if you don't mind. The more projects will watch for the page the better. GreyHood ^Talk 08:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi again! Thank you for your attention to my remark. I don't mind to use both WP, because music of Oleksandr Bilash is important in Russia as well. One thought - before 1991 Bilash worked in Soviet Union. I wish to ask you about importance ratings. Bilash was a key figure in Ukrainian music and I would propose to rate that article as of high importance. BTW I would propose to rate article Mitrofan Belyayev high or maybe even top. Please let me know what you think about that. Thanks, again. Semimartingale (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've raised Oleksandr Bilash importance as Mid for Russia and High for Ukraine (though I'm not very well acquainted with assessment practices of WP:UKRAINE). As for Belyayev, I've raised him to High class, since he was the founder of Belyayev circle and therefore is linked to many top importance music articles. Still I'm not sure about raising. You see, High-importance articles are likely to have more interwikies. GreyHood ^Talk 08:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Semimartingale (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

ITN credit

--Jayron32 19:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainians

Appeal previously sent to administrators: This issue is known to everyone who had honestly edited the page related to the Ukrainians and Ukraine. Almost to all relevant users, it is clear that the site of Ukrainians is arranged in a way that degrades Ukrainians. Ukrainians are presented as they are not a nation but multiethnic part of the Russian people and thats open border with fascism on Wikipedia. There is no similar examples when it comes to articles on other nations. Several well known users are persistent in these efforts to show that Ukrainians are not separate nation. At the same time reliable information is deleted and replaced with the interpretations without a source. Almost every trace of Ukrainians in Russia's history has been cleared and lot's of Ukrainian artist referred to only as a Russian (with my respect to Russians). Users of this work are obviously in anti Ukrainian mood to such an extent that they intentionally write untruth or deliberately erase the facts and finaly damage the work of Wikipedia as an objective media. My suggestion is to devote greater attention to articles related to the Ukrainians and Ukrainian culture in general. We should especially pay attention to several users who are falsely presenting themselves as neutral. Their hatred of Ukrainians is obvious and I do not need to name them. They are very familiar with their unhonest work! I hope that administrators will begin to act and punish those users who spread hatred among the peoples! - These considerations can include you also! Previous english sources have been deleted also!--SeikoEn (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I respect your concerns, however I don't see how they are related to Voyevoda's edit, if it is sourced and supports primary POV on the etymology of Ukrainians. GreyHood ^Talk 18:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop sabotaging page about Ukrainians! You will not succeed because I will inform all users and administrators about this specific antiukrainian movement at Wikipedia!--Vitaly N. (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Making two edits in support of a sourced and well known fact is not sabotaging. Cool down please and engage in more civil discussion of facts instead of motives of other editors. GreyHood ^Talk 19:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Друг, откати вандалов в статье об украинцах. А то меня опять начнут преследовать за три отката. Благодарю. --Voyevoda (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Grey, maybe you are new in this subject, but users such as Voyevoda are spreading hatred among Ukrainians and Russians for some time! I am supervising his work for some time and it is totally anti-Ukrainian! With you I have no problems at all but page about Ukrainians will be FREE of Russian propaganda! Thanks for understanding!--Vitaly N. (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what problems do you have with Voyevoda, and I wouldn't apply the term propaganda to the basic historic facts (Ukraine having been borderland to both Poland and Russia) and linguistic facts (abnormality of "in-land" etymology). GreyHood ^Talk 20:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Виталька, голословные крики о пропаганде делу не помогут. Если пропагадна — опровергай фактами. Не можешь — иди пить чай. Таковы цивилизованные правила. --Voyevoda (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

My limit of reverts has run out for today. But Vitaly N. has broken 3RR which may lead him to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. GreyHood ^Talk 20:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Russian history is not important for Ukrainian history! In Ukraine people precive word Ukraina as native land and that is fact! Ukrainians don't go to page about Russians writing about Moskals or Moksel' state ... thats is russian topic, not ukrainian! Ukraine is not Russia!--Vitaly N. (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Any editor is allowed go edit any page until he/she is able to follow Wikipedia rules and make contributions improving the article. Ethnic slurs are not welcome in serious articles, unless they specifically discuss them. GreyHood ^Talk 20:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, real historical etymology and moderm perception of the term are two different things. GreyHood ^Talk 20:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, blocked you by mistake – I meant to get somebody else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was my clean block log gone... Alas, it was for the good reason that I always tried to avoid edit warring places. Thanks for managing the situation anyway, cheers! GreyHood ^Talk 21:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your great edits on Valentina Matviyenko, which improved it alot! ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's me 11:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'm going to continue the work on the article.. GreyHood ^Talk 11:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Russian presidential election

I saw you on the Russia politics task force. Russian presidential election needs creating even if it's just a stub. IIf you want to create this you can delete my redirect so you get credit for your article. Marcus Qwertyus 16:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

For the current agenda we have the article Russian presidential election, 2012. As for the creation of a separate article about Russian presidential election in general, thank you, I'll add it to the to-do lists. GreyHood ^Talk 16:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the rationales Igny gave - that we need more anti-Baltic editors it appears

Igny et al simply wish the topic to specifically treat it as an "annexation" with the consent of the Baltic states. Your restoration of the POV tag effectively supports his claim that what the article needs is anti-Baltic editors since he has not gotten consensus for his past edits - including unilateral moves of the article in the past, and use of this tag for well over a year without any substantive discussion -- he even rejected my inclusion og "annexation" in the lede as being insufficient - which makes me doubt that this is anything more than a tendentious holding on to the tag. BTW, I am not "pro-Baltic" in any POV at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That's OK, but I feel that more editors are against the removal of this tag, for example Paul Siebert, whose opinion and arguments I respect. GreyHood ^Talk 17:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Igny was quite happy to have no tag at all -- if and only if the title said "annexation." I find that a grossly insufficient rationale. Russavia has been on a short leash for a long time with POV pushing per ArbCom decisions, and is now "retired." Why not ask Paul why he did not object to Igny's removal of the tag after only a renaming of the article? <g>. [2] immediately following [3] These two edits show fully and precisely what the issue is - should the title use "annexation" (the word approved by Soviet historians) or "occupation" (the word used by everyone else <g>) BTW, I was affronted by Igny accusing me of "tag teaming" on my user talk page - to find his 3RR pushing being supported by another after I had given the 3RR warning to Igny seems quite outre indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Look!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyWilly1 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

%) GreyHood ^Talk 21:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Greyhood: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Steven Zhang, at their talk page.

DYK for Bald – hairy

Orlady (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystery

Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 23:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

At least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Russian presidential election, 2012, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Thank you. You should know better, mate. I might not like Uncle Vlad either, but adding "bald - hairy" [4] as a see also is not very helpful I'm afraid. Sorry about it having a welcome message, but I didn't want to make it a level 2 warning. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tishrei 5772 05:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)This seems to be a misunderstanding - the article Bald-hairy is legitimately about the succession of Russian rulers, even if the topic is a (traditional Russian) joke. I am no expert on the subject so I will make no judgement on its inclusion, but it was definitely not vandalism, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, see, that's what I get for not actually clicking the article that was wikilinked. My sincerest apologies to Greyhood then for my own idiotic act. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tishrei 5772 05:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

An apology kitten for you!

For the mistake above. Sorry again!

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tishrei 5772 05:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, thanks! Nice and funny to see such things when you get up. Haven't expected the bald-hairy joke to make so much fuss. Are you still against its inclusion to the 2012 election article? GreyHood ^Talk 09:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the fact that I am pretty certain I know who will be president in 2023 (barring any unforseen incidents); I don't think I'd have any problem against it. I'm pretty sure this election will be characterised as such. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 11 Tishrei 5772 04:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor mediation

Hi there Greyhood, this is just a reminder to submit your initial statement at the MedCab Holodomor mediation. We can't get the mediation under way until we have statements from each of the participating editors, so it will be very helpful if you could post it on the mediation page when you next have a chance. As a refresher, the statement must be no more than 250 words, and should answer the following four questions:

1. What are your interests in regards to the Holodomor articles? How did you discover and start editing the article? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?
2. What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation?
3. What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible.
4. What do you hope to achieve through mediation?

Thank you very much for your participation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

About the article "Timoshenko"

Добрый день!

Давайте вместе улучшим раздел о "суде над Тимошенко". Я написал этот раздел очень подробно в Википедии-ру (см. "Уголовные дела в отношении Юлии Тимошенко с 2010 года", "Уголовные дела в отношении соратников Тимошенко с 2010 года"); а в английской Википедии — этот раздел подан очень слабо (чрезвычайно слабо), хотя по теме высказались уже правительства всех стран (от США, Канады, ЕС, Британии, Германии, Франции до Австралии), и все международные организации (от Европарламента, правительства Евросоюза, ПАСЕ до Freedomhouse); Тимошенко поддержала даже Россия (что бывает весьма редко). Но вместо их оценок — даны какие-то "абсолютно неправдивые трактовки" каких-то мелких сайтов.

Вы сделали заметку "This is important and relevant information, just "arrested" is too short" — относительно абзаца :

• On 5 August 2011, Tymoshenko was arrested for 'repeated violations of court rules' during her trial (she was charged in May 2011) over abuse of office over a natural gas imports contract signed with Russia in January 2009.[22][23][24] International organizations, representatives of the European Union and the United States called this arrest "selective prosecution of political opponents".[23] In December 2010 she was charged with misusing $425m received by her government in 2009 for the sale of carbon credits.[23]

Но это не только не "important and relevant information" — а этот абзац содержит "чёрный пиар против личности" (что прямо запрещено правилами Википедии) :
1) On 5 August 2011, Tymoshenko was arrested for 'repeated violations of court rules' during her trial (she was charged in May 2011) over abuse of office over a natural gas imports contract signed with Russia in January 2009.[22][23][24]

В этот день происходил допрос премьер-министра Азарова, и Тимошенко во время допроса — очень сильно (как она это умеет) изобличила Азарова во лжи, воровстве; и тому подобное. Поэтому через два часа после допроса Азарова — Тимошенко арестовали. То есть надо или писать подробно, или не писать "фразы, которые дезинформируют читателя". И вообще, "причина ареста" не столь важна, как "причина суда над Тимошенко", а поскольку для рассказа о "причине суда" нужно много места, то это тема не для "преамбулы статьи". Эта тема для отдельного раздела, или, ещё лучше, для отдельной статьи о "суде над Тимошенко и её соратниками".

Поэтому "причина ареста" подана не точно, и я её удалил. Надеюсь, Вы с этим согласитесь.

2) In December 2010 she was charged with misusing $425m received by her government in 2009 for the sale of carbon credits.[23]

На самом же деле — даже генпрокуратура Януковича (которая по мнению правозащитных организаций полностью заангажирована) обвиняют Тимошенко не в "злоупотреблениях (под которыми читатель понимает воровство средств)", а в "перечислении Киотских денег — в Пенсионный фонд Украины, и в выплате законных пенсий". Какое страшное злодеяние! Поэтому или надо писать "суть дела", или вычеркнуть о "злоупотреблениях Тимошенко на 425 млн. дол"; но просто "злоупотребления" это клевета на Тимошенко. Вот как пишет об этом сайт "Radio Liberty, Radio free Europe" :

• U.S. Law Firm Says Charges Against Tymoshenko Are Not Based On Facts. June 17, 2011.

Two firms retained by former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to examine the charges of abuse of power and improper use of budgetary funds brought against her by the Ukrainian government have said there is no factual basis for the accusations.

The law firm, Covington and Burling LLP, and the accounting company, BDO USA, also presented their analysis of a report conducted by two other U.S. firms that serves as the basis for the Ukrainian government's charges against Tymoshenko. This report, by the two U.S. law firms Trout Cacheris and Akin Gump, is not "worth the paper it is written on," according to Bruce Baird, a partner at Covington and Burling.

Trout Cacheris and Akin Gump presented a report in October 2010, which was solicited and paid for by the Ukrainian government, in which they claimed that Tymoshenko improperly handled revenues received in 2009 from the exchange of carbon emission credits under the Kyoto Protocol.

They alleged that she had used carbon credit funds which were meant to be used for pensions.(сайт "Radio Liberty, Radio free Europe", June 17, 2011).

Согласитесь, что в Википедии-англ информация подана так, якобы Тимошенко "злоупотребляла". А даже в обвинениях (доклада от 14.10.2010; и потом в обвинениях генпрокуратуры Украины) написано, что "Тимошенко перечислила Киотские деньги — в Пенсионный фонд Украины". То есть это совершенно разные трактовки и темы. Кроме того, в данном абзаце надо — или коротко сказать "арестована" (не вдаваясь в подробности), или говорить (хотя бы несколько предложений) о истинной сущности дела (чтобы читатель понимал, что речь идёт о "перечислении средств в Пенсионный фонд"). А в текущей редакции получается, что "Тимошенко злоупотребляла (украла? присвоила?) на 425 млн. дол". Нет, не украла и не присвоила, а "выплатила пенсии пенсионерам в 2009 году (год мирового финансового кризиса)" — в этом "страшное преступление Тимошенко".

Вывод :

• Тему "суда над Тимошенко" надо подать более точно и более подробно в специальном разделе; а в преамбуле (о которой сейчас речь) достаточно дать "арестована. Мир считает это политическим преследованием" — это именно то, что отражает завления "десятков стран и организаций всего мира".

И как результат — прошу Вас вернуть указанную правку. И если у Вас есть желание, то мы могли бы совместно доработать этот раздел "суда над Тимошенко" — потому что у меня масса "Авторитетных источников, ссылок" (я автор этой темы в Википедии-ру). Сможете ли Вы перевести одну-две странички текста по "суду над Тимошенко" — я дам очень интересные и взвешенные источники. С уважением, --Vles1 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Соглашусь с тем, что про Киотские деньги формулировку нужно дать более точно. Лично я разделяю также и то мнение, что уголовное преследование Тимошенко имеет политический характер. Но все же, указание, даже в преамбуле, лишь на то, что Тимошенко была арестована, и большинство зарубежных стран это осудили, противоречит WP:NPOV. Согласно руководству по нейтральной точке зрения, должна быть представлена основная точка зрения, разделяемая большинством источников, и существенные точки зрения меньшинства - именно к последним относится точка зрения украинской прокуратуры. Следует указать причину ареста, пускай даже формальную. Это не противоречит ни освещению процесса как политического, ни факту осуждения этого процесса из-за рубежа. Что же касается WP:BLP - в данном случае мы имеем дело с публичным человеком, политиком, и информация о причине ареста имеет официальное происхождение, поэтому не вижу здесь никаких проблем. GreyHood ^Talk 21:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Благодарю за оперативный ответ.
1) "про Киотские деньги формулировку нужно дать более точно". То есть надо указать, что генпрокуратура обвиняет Тимошенко в перечислении средств в "Пенсионный фонд Украины", и там деньги не "раскрадены", а использованы для выплату пенсий. Это важная деталь, потому, что если просто поставить рядом "злоупотребления" и "Пенсионный фонд", то получается, что "злоупотребления были в Пенсионном фонде".

Итак, такая редакция :

Начиная с мая 2010 года против Тимошенко было заведено ряд уголовных дел, наиболее важные :

2 декабря 2010 Тимошенко было предъявлено обвинение в том, что $ 425 млн (полученные от продажи углеродной квоты) правительство Тимошенко перечислило в Пенсионный фонд Украины (эти деньги были использованы на выплату пенсий населению во время "мирового финансового кризиса 2009 года"), а по правилам "Киотского протокола" на эти деньги следовало высаживать леса. Генпрокуратура Украины трактует это как "нарушение бюджетной дисциплины" и "превышение служебных полномочий".

27 январе 2011 года возбуждено дело о покупке "автомобилей Opel Combo для медицинских учреждений в сельской местности"; цена приобретения автомобиля не вызывает нареканий, также все автомобили были поставлены именно в села. Но генпрокуратура усматривает нарушение в том, что автомобили были куплены осенью 2009 года в кредит и их покупка не была предусмотрена бюджетом-2009 года, а лишь бюджетом 2010 года.

17 июне 2011 года привлечённые Тимошенко аудиторские фирмы из США ("Covington and Burling LLP" and "BDO USA") сделали вывод о полной невиновности Тимошенко по делам о "Киотских деньгах" и "автомобилях сельской медицины" : эти обвинения "not worth the paper it is written on" сайт "Radio Liberty, Radio free Europe", June 17, 2011. После этого вывода - из СМИ исчезли сообщения генпрокуратуры по этим делам; сторона Тимошенко заявила, что эти дела развалились.

2) Такой текст пункта 1 — слишком велик для преамбулы статьи "Тимошенко" — я предлагаю перенести это текст в специальный раздел о "уголовных делах против Тимошенко в 2010-2011 годах"; и дополнить его текстом о "газовом деле" (см. далее п. 3). А в преамбуле — использовать текст, близкий к тексту из Википедии-ру (преамбула статьи "Уголовные дела в отношении Юлии Тимошенко с 2010 года" в Википедии-ру) :

Начиная с мая 2010 года - в отношении Тимошенко открыто ряд уголовных дел (также уголовные дела открыты против нескольких десятков соратников Тимошенко, министров Правительства Тимошенко 2007-2010 годов). Большинство дел возбуждено по результатам аудита деятельности «второго правительства Тимошенко (2007—2010)» — аудит проводила[1][2] «новая власть» В. Януковича (к проведению аудита были привлечены две юридические фирмы[2] из США). По всем этим делам — генеральная прокуратура Украины не обвиняет Тимошенко в «расхищении или присвоении средств» (большинство дел основаны на обвинении в «превышение служебных полномочий»). International organizations, representatives of the European Union and the United States called this arrest "selective prosecution of political opponents".[23]

3) Текст о "газовом деле".

Наиболее важным является "газовое дело по договорам 2009 года".

17 марта 2011 года, по инициативе «Партии регионов», в Верховной Раде была создана «Временная следственная комиссия Верховной Рады по расследованию обстоятельств подписания в 2009 году газовых соглашений между НАК „Нафтогаз Украины“ и ОАО „Газпром“».[26][27][28]

11 апреля 2011 года глава указанной следственной комиссии регионалка И. Богословская заявила : «Сегодня мы предоставляем отчёт о первом этапе работы ВСК… Тимошенко подделала директивы газовых соглашений» на переговорах с Россией.[29]

В тот же день, 11 апреля 2011 г. заместитель генерального прокурора Украины Ренат Кузьмин заявил, что на Ю. Тимошенко заведено очередное уголовное дело «за превышение власти и служебных полномочий при заключении газовых соглашений с Россией в 2009 году» (во время газового кризиса января 2009 года, когда Россия на три недели полностью перекрыла подачу газа в Украину и Центральную Европу). Заявления в поддержку возбуждения "газового дела" делали владелец РосУкрЭнерго Д. Фирташ[32] (посредническая фирма на газовом рынке) и покровительствовавший РосУкрЭнерго экс-президент Ющенко.[33]

Позиция МИД России по "газовому делу Тимошенко" : «Все „газовые“ соглашения 2009 года заключались в строгом соответствии с национальным законодательством двух государств».[3] Партия Юлии Тимошенко «Батьківщина» и другие оппозиционные партии считают это дело политическим преследованием лидера оппозиции; официальные представители стран Запада подозревают политическую мотивированность в действиях украинской власти в отношении Юлии Владимировны.[4][5][6]

4) Раздел "Выступления против преследования Тимошенко".

Против преследования Тимошенко, в частности по "газовому делу", высказались :
— министерства иностранных дел и послы стран большой восьмёрки : США, Канады, Великобритании, Франции, Германии, России;
— Евросоюз в целом (Европейский парламент, правительство Евросоюза), министерства иностранных дел большинства стран Евросоюза (в том числе Испании, Швеции, Чехии, Польши).
— Активную поддержку Тимошенко оказывали лидер "Европейской народной партии" Вильфред Мартенс и сенатор США Джон МакКейн — они подписали несколько писем к властем Украины в поддержку Тимошенко; благодаря этому — Тимошенко была отпущена (с подписки о невыезде) в марте 2011 года на съезд Европейской народной партии в Брюсселе.
— Европейский союз (комиссары Штефан Фюле и Кетрин Эштон) высказался, что "политическое преследование Тимошенко" коренным образом ухудшит отношения Евросоюза и Украины.
— 9 июня 2011 года "Европейский парламент" принял — весьма важную резолюцию по Украине «Дела Юлии Тимошенко и других членов бывшего правительства».
— 9 сентября 2011 года, госсекретарь США Хиллари Клинтон и комисар Евросоюза Кетрин Эштон — направили президенту Украины Януковичу личное послание в поддержку Тимошенко;
— заявления о необоснованности "газового дела против Тимошенко" сделали президент России Медведев и премьер-министр Путин.
— 29 сентября 2011 года, на саммите Восточно-европейского партнёрства канцлер ФРГ Ангела Меркель — провела длительную беседу с Януковичем на тему "прекращения преследования Тимошенко".
— в поддержку Тимошенко поместили редакционные статьи издания «The Economist», «The Guardian», «The New York Times», «Die Welt», «Le Figaro», «The Washington Post», «Süddeutsche Zeitung»;
— против преследования Тимошенко выступили международные правозащитные организации («Freedom House», «Transparency International», ets.). В частности ясно высказался Дэвид Крамер (исполнительный директор FreedomHouse) на конференции «Будущее Украины: вызовы и последствия власти в Украине» (конференция прошла 7 июля 2011 в Вашингтоне, организована «Институтом международной экономики Петерсона», «Центром США и Европы Брукингского института», «Атлантическим Советом»):

— «Этим расследованиям больше нельзя доверять. Это просто обвинения, выдвигаемые одно за другим против Юлии Тимошенко, пока наконец что-то не получится… Я обращаюсь к своим коллегам из украинского правительства, которые присутствуют здесь. Когда вы вернетесь назад, или будете докладывать вашему правительству, скажите им, чтобы они остановились. Это — возмутительно!»[156]

Итог :
— Не знаю, как лучше поступить. Наверное я переведу этот текст (я переброшу этот текст на свою страничку обсуждения); а Вы не смогли бы отредактировать "мой несовершенный английский".
— А более быстрый вариант : если бы Вы перевели этот текст (я перенёс этот текст на мою страничке, в каталог "The criminal case against Tymoshenko (Wikipedia English), 9.10.2011"), а я наполню его ссылками-АИ из англоязычных изданий. А потом — или в статью "Юлия Тимошенко", или создать новую статью в Википедии-англ "Уголовные дела в отношении Юлии Тимошенко с 2010 года".

Зараннее благодарен за сотрудничество. --Vles1 (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

В принципе, Вы меня убедили, что в преамбуле лучше оставить лишь общее указание на ряд уголовных дел, не вдаваясь в детали. Что я и сделал в последней правке. Что касается помощи с переводом, то текст не выглядит сложным, а Ваш английский не так уж и плох, так что мне имеет смысл помочь Вам разве что с постредактированием. Надо отметить, что статья про Тимошенко довольно большая, а предлагаемая добавка к статье тоже не маленькая, поэтому, вероятно, следует создать отдельную статью 2011 trial and arrest of Yulia Tymoshenko или даже более общую статью Criminal persecution of Yulia Tymoshenko, а в основной статье оставить лишь краткое изложение событий. GreyHood ^Talk 11:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Спасибо за уточнённую преамбулу, но всё же — там выпали два очень важных момента : 1) По всем этим делам — генеральная прокуратура Украины не обвиняет Тимошенко в «расхищении или присвоении средств» (большинство дел основаны на обвинении в «превышение служебных полномочий»). 2) также уголовные дела открыты против нескольких десятков соратников Тимошенко, министров Правительства Тимошенко 2007-2010 годов.

Особенно важен п. 1, ведь в суде над Тимошенко (в обвинениях генпрокуратуре) Тимошенко не обвиняют в присвоении или воровстве даже копейки! А обвиняют в "превышении полномочий" (и даже это "превышении полномочий" не подтверждают материалы дел, и почти единогласно провергают даже "свидетели прокуратуры"). Это очень важно, что "Тимошенко не обвиняют в воровстве, присвоении, коррупции"!! — вообще нет аналогов в мире, чтобы политика судили и не нашли "ни единого случая коррупции". Сама Тимошенко говорит, что этот суд, эта "Генпрокуратура Януковича" — доказали не коррумпированность Тимошенко (и её правительство)!! Поэтому-то все политики Запада — так дружно защищают Тимошенко. По п. 2 — "экс-министра внутренних дел Луценко" судят за увеличение пенсии его шофёру на 100 долларов в месяц (и за оплату концерта во дворце "Украина" на День милиции в размере 40 тыс. долларов) и это трактуют как "присвоение в особо крупных размерах группой лиц". Это парадоксальные суды; поэтому вся Европа, США, Россия — против этих судов.

Короче, переведу текст — попрошу Вас отредактировать статьи 2011 trial and arrest of Yulia Tymoshenko или Criminal persecution of Yulia Tymoshenko. Всего доброго. --Vles1 (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessments

Hey, thanks for assessing all those law citation templates today! I'll make sure to tag the new ones I'll be creating. Also, I don't know if you left it for later, but in case you didn't notice, there is also this cat :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2011; 21:26 (UTC)

OMG, the amount of stuff you created for wiki makes me crazy %) Now I'll assess that category as well, sure. By the way, by now we should have all federal subjects, districts, cities, towns, urban-type settlements, villages, military bases, and general articles and lists and set indices of subdivisions assessed. This means that the Category:Human geography of Russia task force articles should contain most things related to the topic we have on-wiki, except some historical divisions and categories related to big cities. From 1 December the PP list should reflect the viewership of the topic as it is. GreyHood ^Talk 21:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hoax?

I'm about to leave for the day, but could you take a look at this article, please, if you have a moment? I suspect it could be a hoax (especially considering this by the same editor). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2011; 21:43 (UTC)

Looks like hoax at the first glance, but there is a Russian article: ru:Токати, Григори. Several points of the biography are highly unlikely, though, and they've questioned credibility of the information on Russian wiki too, but it seems that there are enough sources behind it. GreyHood ^Talk 21:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Grigori Tokaty

Why do you say my article is a hoax? User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not say that. But "Stavtordt" looks like an invented word. According to Russian article and references there, Tokaty was born in Ossetia, in the settlement of Novy Urukh (Novourukhskoye), not in Stavtordt or Stavropol. GreyHood ^Talk 22:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second im a little confused here, I didnt actually know that guy had an article on the russian wikipedia.

On many sources it states Tokaty's birthplace as Stavtordt, including the World at War's site so that cant possibly be a hoax it must be the russian wikipedia that is in the wrong. Also on the russian wikipedia it states the creator of the world at war was Martin Smith, which is obviously made up as it was Jeremy Isaacs and Laurence olivier and it was produced in many differnt languages, including russian. Also the picture on the russian wikipedia may not even be him, Since whenever ive seen him; either being in the new scientist magazine or being interviewed on various shows he always wore glasses; that picture may of been taken nearly 20 years after in 2001 so maybe so or maybe not. User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 22:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Gibe sources plz ;) I mean you should present your sources for "Stavtordt". It is something unheard of and unknown to Google, it is linguistically highly unlikely that such a place name ever existed in Russian or Ossetian. I'll revert your edits, but if you have sources, please remake your additions with references. GreyHood ^Talk 22:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You dont really know where im coming from here , i wasnt talking about that place i was talking about the guy who came from there. If your on about the place ill copy what i told Ez:

sometimes it helps to use a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE , Stavropol was known by the name of Stavtordt in the days of the Russian Empire, Simular to the renaming of Tsaritsyn to Stalingrad or St petersburg to Leningrad and then back again. Also, when you type "Stavtordt" in google or bing maps it always links you to Stavropol which may be a big clue. Also BOTH are in (or were) Ossetia and this guy happened to be born in Stavtordt, which was later renamed stavropol; i believe he stated that fact in one of his interviews with the New Scientist.

User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 22:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources please. Google gives just 55 links on "Stavtordt", all of them related to Tokaty. Also those links tell that Stavtordt is in Ossetia, while Stavropol is not. GreyHood ^Talk 22:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you know what, i really dont care if you revert it back again since im going to fall into the 3RR trap again; im tired and its nearly midnight, ill investigate it in the morning. (Or probably when i get time tomorrow evening) User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 22:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. A Russian proverb says that "morning is wiser than evening" ;) GreyHood ^Talk 22:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing the discussion, Grey. I'm sorry I had to disappear so abruptly yesterday—I was late for an appointment—but I've responded to the points made so far on my talk page. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 12, 2011; 14:19 (UTC)

DYK for Stepan Shevyryov

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Re

If I wanted to bring anyone's attention to anything, I would file an official report. But I did not. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. I've already made one more comment on that, but will refrain from further unnecessary discussions. Cheers! GreyHood ^Talk 20:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for A Common Story

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for An Uncommon Story

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Greyhood/Archive 2011 July-December! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

DYK for Dmitry Khvostov

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thx! GreyHood ^Talk 08:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

ITN for Bolshoi Theatre

Excellent work done. I hope you'll continue doing it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! I've already mentioned your help in the ITN box on my User page! GreyHood ^Talk 13:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology

I think Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology needs to be created.[5] It's probably not possible to get it to ITN though, because it's not 100% clear yet what will come of it, or what do you think? Also, what are your plans regarding the main article Skolkovo innovation center? Although I have little time right now, I could do some small expansions in the future. Of course, there is little point in doing that, if you're planning a major expansion soon. Nanobear (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's DYK stuff, yeah. And my recent intentions were to work on Skolkovo few months later, when they finally built at least some buildings and infrastructure there. But if you have the material to expand it right now, go on please. GreyHood ^Talk 21:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Просьба о помощи

Помоги, пожалуйста, откатить игнориорующих дискуссию вандалов в статье Ukrainians. Они хотят поймать меня на правиле трёх откатов. Благодарю! --Voyevoda (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Спасибо! Только вот карту Украины и Окраины не стоило возвращать. Это небрежность картографа, которая даёт им основание утверждать, что это разные слова. На самом деле десятки источников говорят об обратном. --Voyevoda (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Я знаю, что слово одно и то же. Но карта интересная, достаточно просто соответствующим образом поправить заголовок, указав на связь/эквивалентность двух слов. GreyHood ^Talk 16:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ой, это тонкий лёд. Свидомиты известны тем, что любую подачку используют и выведут новую теорию в вечном и повсеместном различии этих двух понятий. Лучше об этимологической связи написать просто в тексте. --Voyevoda (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

К сожалению, вандалы снова хулиганят и участия в дискуссии не принимают. Прошу снова откатить. К тому же буду благодарен за отзыв на мой альтернативный коллаж. --Voyevoda (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"Прошу снова откатить." Translation: "please revert them again". Biophys (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. If you are so interested in this discussion, I can explain the events. The first post by Voyevoda turned my attention to this page which was on the top of my watchlist, while I was already starting looking from the bottom and was temporarily carried away by the Baltic ferries.. Hoping to make a solution that would be a consensus, I made partial revert, roughly returning to the version of the etymology which had been achieved weeks before after a proper discussion with my participation; at the same time I left intact the images which I considered relevant and which Voyevoda then removed. I did no action on his second request, and the admins already started taking actions by that time. GreyHood ^Talk 18:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Arctic policy of Russia

Greetings. I've recently turned my attention back to Arctic policy of Russia, and was wondering, since you are an active participant in WikiProject Russia, if you would be kind enough to take a look at it and give some pointers for where it could be improved. Right now I'll be working on getting the comments made in the peer review worked out, but additional input would be greatly appreciated.--Slon02 (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice and interesting topic! See my suggestions at the Talk:Arctic policy of Russia. GreyHood ^Talk 12:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Keeping tags hidden while on main page

Re: [6]. Can you point me to a policy or a guideline that supports such "censorship" for the main page articles? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of an existing practice related to ITN postings, that pages on ITN should not have significant problems with citations and other stuff, and should not be overtagged. The problem on that particular page isn't really significant (not BLP etc) and was identified after it was posted to ITN, so I enacted the simplest solution having no time to work on the article right at the moment. By now, however, the article is due to move off the ITN template soon, so we should definitely show the tags back. GreyHood ^Talk 17:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

My primary concern is that such tags ask others to get involve, and show people this is a collaborative project, with articles always in development. Just like our front page states "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and we have inviting stub tags, I think we should not remove such tags from ITN or an other main paged articles. I'd strongly suggest that if you disagree, you try to find a policy to support this, or reconsider such removal, as I think that artificial prettifying articles for the public is not beneficial (it misleads people, and reduces the chance for new recruits). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've already re-instated tags, since the article is on the bottom of ITN box and is due to be removed soon anyway. Such tags, however, are not usually addressed by other users until after a long while, so the chances of new recruits are slim; and the main page is supposed to show the best content of the Wikipedia. I agree however, that such a practice is questionable and I'll try to abstain from it in the future. GreyHood ^Talk 17:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi Greyhood. I saw your comment. Yes, I certainly agree with you that if user R is placed on interaction ban with user B, then user B should not post anything at talk page of user R that would require discussion. Neither he should initiate any discussion with R at article talk pages. Therefore I did not. This is my comment, and this is "a common courtesy of an answer" (as you said). This is my second comment, and this is "a common courtesy of an answer". Thanks, Biophys (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made general conclusions from Russavia post and suggestions for the future. The particular style of your interaction is a different question. Also, strictly and formally and in fact you did initiate a discussion by posting at Russavia talk page. GreyHood ^Talk 08:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am commenting here because your post (the statement by Russavia you linked to) was also about me. No, I did not initiate discussions. My first notice tells that he should not respond, but only self-revert elsewhere to avoid violation. The second one is a procedural notice. Yes, I am going to respect the request by Russavia and never come to his talk page again, unless this is required by procedures (that is what I did). None of that was intended as a "provocation". I did not use the impolite responses by Russavia (diffs above) to submit my AE request. Same with Aeroflot [7]. This is all. Biophys (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That's good and really nice of you. But posting on someone's talk page technically means starting interaction even if the owner of the talk page does not respond and you do not want him to respond. The very need to read a post, to make the decision to follow the link or not, to follow the proposal or not, to leave the post on the page or not, supposes certain inherent level of interaction. Which seems should be avoided in the given case. GreyHood ^Talk 14:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You tell: "Which seems should be avoided in the given case." No, I do not think it would be fair to report Russavia without giving him an opportunity to self-revert. Biophys (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It would not be fair to report Russavia in any case here. You tell: None of that was intended as a "provocation". GreyHood ^Talk 15:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I only tried to explain that it would be best to drop the stick at this point. Sorry if it was not clear enough. Biophys (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand you very well and I am not sure what I'd have done myself in a similar situation. This just shows that i-bans create unclear and problematic situations, and non-mutual ones even more so. GreyHood ^Talk 18:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he does not want to stop: "by Biophys, his using of a one-way interaction ban as a weapon to lock me out of articles" [8]. What articles? I left him Aeroflot so far, and we do not have any recent disputes in any other articles. Biophys (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Viktor Muyzhel

Thanks for adding the Ivan III portrait. I had to repair the Viktor Vasilyevich Muizhel.jpg image file name; changing the file name here only breaks the link and makes it unviewable. In order to change the file name you would have to request a change on wikimedia.

My best article lately is Lev Lunts; my next article is going to be on his fellow Serapion Brother Никола́й Никола́евич Ники́тин.--INeverCry 19:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I've made an error interfering with the file name. Good work with all those articles and I really like the way how steadily you work on the topic, something which I was unable to do since the start of my huge task force and assessment project. And I forget to say I'm really glad that you have returned to editing GreyHood ^Talk 19:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

My wikipedia editing is like a form of meditation for me; I missed it too much to stay away. I appriciated the note you left me while I was gone. Your task force and assessment project is indeed huge; the first time I saw you on here a year and a half ago, you had a little over 15000 edits, and now you're almost up to 70000! As for my article output, I would've done quite a few more if there were more English sources that I could use. I'll keep doing my best with what I've got. I can't keep up with Vladimir though!--INeverCry 19:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe when I'll be around 100000 edits we'll have most of existing Russia articles assessed, then I'll return to more normal editing. By the way, recently I've adviced Vladimir to nominate his new articles for DYK: User_talk:Evermore2#DYK_nominations. You may also try this if you like, though that will require a bit more effort with inline citations in your articles. GreyHood ^Talk 19:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of my articles come from sources that are no longer than a page or half a page, which is why I usually group them together (abcde etc). I don't know how DYK works, but I do know that everything I've written has been from the best sources I could find. If the Lunts article is good enough, most of my others should pass muster.--INeverCry 04:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated the article Lev Lunts. Please watch for the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Lev Lunts. GreyHood ^Talk 20:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll watch, but DYK doesn't exite me that much. I work on my articles and lists because I enjoy it and I like how they look, and because I read and enjoy the works of most of the writers I've written articles for. I really don't worry at all about how many people view them.--INeverCry 04:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Check this: Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Selection_criteria. The articles should be long (1500 symbols) enough and every paragraph, except of the intro, should be referenced. GreyHood ^Talk 08:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

ITN for Fobos-Grunt

This was pretty quickly. Nice work!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, though it was not me the nominator ) GreyHood ^Talk 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It was Hektor. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 08:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't track the history. However, I modified a little bit to denote your diligence and positive influence to post it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lev Lunts

Hello! Your submission of Lev Lunts at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Froggerlaura (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I polished up your rewording of the article. It looks good. Your comment on the sources being few and short is exactly right. I've had to rely on limited sources for most of my articles. I've lost interest in new articles, so I'm going to stick to images, navboxes, and helping Evermore in the future. --INeverCry 20:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That's normal that you change your editing interests, me too haven't created new articles for many months (though I plan to create some in the future). Personally I believe that your initial wording was good and acceptable enough and not too close to the sources. But different editors may have different views on this. GreyHood ^Talk 21:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

re: Mikhail Golant nominated for DYK

Hi, thanks for nominating Golant for a DYK. (Much appreciate it.)

Unfortunately, the hook that he was a founder of EHF therapy is going to be difficult to source, since there is little or nothing written about it in English sources, and not that much in Russian. I've seen Golant referred to as EHF therapy founder on Ru-Wiki -- still, I was unable to find any sources that were independent of EHF products manufacturers. (Interestingly, the Prokhorov and Dianov obituary that the article references does not say anything about EHF therapy.)

May I suggest an alternate hook from the Prokhorov-Dianov obituary, which Technical Physics republished in English, e.g.

"Did you know that Mikhail Golant pioneered the Soviet approach to design of backward-wave tubes (BWTs), creating BWTs that Nobel Prize winner Alexander Prokhorov described as a "basic tool for physical research in the millimeter and submillimterer-wave ranges"?"

(See [9])

I'm not all that familiar with the DYK process and kind of too busy to look into how to add an alt hook right now, but you may want to consider a modified hook if sourcing should be an issue.

Best, Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, understand the point on EHF. But the hook is too long for DYK, I suppose. I'll omit the second part, but if you could propose a bit shorter one, feel free to modify it in the template. GreyHood ^Talk 21:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked the bit about EHF therapy when I approved the hook, and added a ref from the Nikolay Devyatkov page that at least showed that they worked on it together, although a secondary source would be a lot better. I added in the 'sapper' bit that had got missed out from the article :). There's quite a bit of information there in the main source that could be used to expand this article, which would be good as it's only just long enough now. Mikenorton (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. GreyHood ^Talk 18:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Research Institute of Atomic Reactors (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Dmitrovgrad

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment counts

Sorry it took me so long to get to those. They turned out to be a piece of cake. Here's demographics and ethnography, and I will take care of the rest in a few minutes. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 16, 2011; 20:02 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I'll insert the tables onto the task force pages now. GreyHood ^Talk 21:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The assessment count for the history taskforce seems not working for some reason. GreyHood ^Talk 23:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me? Can you clarify what's wrong, please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 17, 2011; 13:10 (UTC)

Hm, now its fine, but yesterday it looked like a red link to me. Strange. GreyHood ^Talk 13:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Must have been a bot lag or something. It is one of the larger categories, after all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 17, 2011; 14:21 (UTC)

Yes, I also thought the problem must be connected with the size of the category. GreyHood ^Talk 14:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Evermore2/Ratings

Can you please give a writer's barnstar (Template:The Writer's Barnstar) to Evermore2? I would do it, but I've already given him a national merit barnstar. His A. K. Tolstoy is worth a barnstar on its own, not to mention Bunin and Lokhvitskaya.

Also- I've been working on the unassessed WP:Russia articles. So far I've done 500+ articles, and should be able to do all of them within a week or so. I'm doing the class and importance parameters. If you come across any of my ratings that should be higher or lower please fix them. I think I'm doing a good job; I look at the articles for size and content before rating them.--INeverCry 20:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for reminding, I was going to give Evermore2 a barnstar long ago.. he really deserves more awards for his wonderful work.

I've noticed your assessments today, on the Template:WikiProject Russia changes, and was going to thank you after finishing with assessment of Russia templates. Your help is much appreciated, because I'm set to complete assessment as soon a possible and spend more time on other tasks.

As on assessment ratings, I can give you one simple tip: if the article has more than 10 interwikies, i usually give it "Mid" importance, and if it has more than 20 interwikies, that's a good candidate for "High" importance. For specific categories of things, like settlements, rivers, mountains etc, there are certain conventions used by me and User:Ezhiki, depending on such parameters as the population size, lenghth of the river etc. Perhaps I'll write add a guide on this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Assessment. Most items in these geographical categories are already assessed, though.

You may also help with adding task force parameters. There is a Category:WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force - I worked on it for many months, and less than 20% of the original amount of articles without task forces remained. The parameters are given on the task force pages, in one of the top sections.

I'll look through your edits a bit later and will add new assessed articles to my watchlist. Thank you very much. GreyHood ^Talk 21:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for giving him the barnstar. I'm about half way through the assessments, but they're pretty easy. I've also been adding Russian writer images to articles on other wikis. I've been thinking about using AWB. Have you looked into this? It might help lighten the workload and speed us up a bit.--INeverCry 21:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about using such instruments as AWB as well, but I haven't seen anything about assessment in its manual. If you manage to find some good instrument to facilitate work, please tell me.

I think you might be interested in the following information. The main Russian news agency, RIA Novosti started donating pictures for Wikipedia this year. These are very good quality, professional and often quite rare images which would be a great addition to any relevant article. The images may be found here:

• All images from RIA Novosti
• World War II
• Battle of Moscow
• Soviet and Russian nuclear industry
• Komsomol
• 1980 Summer Olympics

If you help in adding some of those pictures to articles as a part of your work with images, that would be great. Also, watch for the new releases from RIA Novosti, they might donate more images related to individual biographies, Soviet science and journalism, Soviet writers etc. GreyHood ^Talk 21:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll do what I can with the RN pics. As for AWB, I noticed Bgwhite using it to edit talk page template parameters. I'll check it out.--INeverCry 00:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

3 RR - United Russia

I made my previous edit to this article 2 days ago, on November 17. Your notice is wrong - see the part on 24 hours period. Please remove it, otherwise I'll do that myself. I hope I know the basic Wikipedia rules and guidelines well enough, and advice everyone to read them more closely before trying to implement them. Regards, GreyHood ^Talk 16:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if you wait 2 days, it is still edit war. As you "know Wikipedia rules and guidelines well enough", you should also know that all form of edit war (crossing 3RR/24 h or not) should be avoided. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit war is a different issue. I support my edits by explanations on the talk page. And I may wait for an answer to those explanations and for arrival to a consensus before taking action. But some material (BLP and political agitation) needs to be removed as quickly as possible, and it's the restoration of such a material that should be discussed now, not its removal. By the way, see exemptions from 3RR: when something violates BLP it should be removed disregarding 3RR. You have not shown conclusively that BLP does not apply in this case. GreyHood ^Talk 16:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"Party of crooks and thieves" refers to the party (which is a very large group) as a whole, and not to its individual members. Therefore BLP is not applicable. --RJFF (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Expressions like "party was accused in corruption" indeed refer to the party on the whole, some part of that whole, or some concrete actions by the party, since some or even the majority of party people might not be involved in corruption or accusations in corruption, even if the party on the whole is accused in it. However, the expression "Party of crooks and thieves", containing two plural nouns used to signify groups of people, strongly suggests that the party consists of crooks and thieves, a reference to all individual members of the party. Are the people below and many other people "crooks and thieves"?

• 
  Alina Kabaeva
• Alexander Karelin
  Alexander Karelin
• 
  Svetlana Zhurova

This multiple violation of BLP should not be allowed. GreyHood ^Talk 17:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• 
  Murtaza Rakhimov, see Ural Rakhimov
• 
  Yury Luzhkov, see Yelena Baturina
• 
  Putin, see Putin's Palace
• Boris Gryzlov, see Viktor Petrik
  Boris Gryzlov, see Viktor Petrik
• 
  Vladimir Resin (you know, DeWitt, La Pressy Grande Complication, CHF 1,044,800)
• 
  Dmitry Medvedev, see Jusufov

All Russian people stand united against empty accusations of certain foreign magazines! Thanks, bro, I can do galleries now. Gritzko (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion regarding a user from Rape during the occupation of Germany

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

--Anonyma Madel 22:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

I was just wondering why Template:WikiProject Russian history is in Category:Unknown-importance Unassessed Russia articles, and how to fix this?--INeverCry 23:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There is somewhat similar problem with the Template:WikiProject Russia, which is in Category:WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force. Seems some parameters should be fixed there. I'll re-address this problem to Ezhiki, he has some experience with these templates. GreyHood ^Talk 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

See here: User_talk:Ezhiki#WikiProject_templates_assessment. I hope Ezhiki will answer on Monday, as usually. GreyHood ^Talk 00:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for assessing all those unassessed articles! GreyHood ^Talk 00:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I still have 560 more articles to go.--INeverCry 01:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The unassessed articles are down to 0!--INeverCry 23:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

WP Russia in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Russia for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Grey, are you going to take a shot at it? WP:RUSSIA could sure use some coverage; I just hope this isn't due for a while, because of all the holidays here in the US. Perhaps we could divide the sections among all those who intend to participate? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 21, 2011; 15:11 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take part in that interview. But what do you mean by dividing the sections and what sections? GreyHood ^Talk 18:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Duh me; I meant to say "questions", not "sections" :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 21, 2011; 19:05 (UTC)

Ah, I see, let's continue discussion at your talk. GreyHood ^Talk 19:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Great Patriotic War (Term)

What could be more central to this article that the motivations Stalin had behind coining it? Its very usage was as revisionist propaganda on the part of Stalin, and cannot be seen outside of that context without either revising or leaving large gaps in the actual history. The page is about the TERM: "The whole Soviet idea of the Great Patriotic War was premised..." this goes to the very heart of the matter. Please reconsider your motivation in deleting this essential commentary. Rpm bln (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. The term was not coined by Stalin, but in fact appeared in 1914. According to this source the term was re-introduced to the public attention in the newspaper Pravda on 23 June 1941, just the day after Germany attacked the Soviet Union. It was used by Yemelyan Yaroslavsky, a member of Pravda editors' collegium. It was many times reproduced and became popular. The term Отечественная война (Patriotic War or Fatherland War) was recognized by establishment of the Order of the Patriotic War on 20 May 1942. The term was not revisionist whatsoever, it was a moral booster and a reference to the Patriotic War of 1812. In 1941-42 the Soviets had one task: survive. And they need high moral for that. Revisionism was among the last things the Soviet Union cared about then. In fact, what is revisionism that is exactly the attempts like the one by Snyder to see the history in retrospect and to revise its representation, explaining certain developments by motives based on things important at present, but unimportant 70 years ago, thus diminishing and vilifying truly important things.GreyHood ^Talk 18:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lev Lunts

Orlady (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 16:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thx! GreyHood ^Talk 21:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Too many spammed images of Moscow sculpture group

Please stop spamming images of Muscovite sculptures into articles. Most of the images are not well photographed, with low contrast and busy, confusing backgrounds, and they are conceptual in nature, not specifically applicable to the article such as War, Violence, etc. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. In some cases you might be right, but in some not (some photographs are better with less problematic backgrounds). Often there are other artistic images in such articles, so this is not a pretext not to use these ones. GreyHood ^Talk 17:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Greyhood. You have new messages at Slon02's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:Russia etc

Project membership lists and surveys really aren't my cup of tea. An occasional barnstar is nice, because they show a personal touch, but I prefer to work behind the scenes.--INeverCry 23:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's OK. I have preferred not to join formally for a long time as well. But still I need to ask you, won't you mind an honorary membership in the literature and mass media task forces then? You'll be the first ever honorary member of the project! GreyHood ^Talk 23:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Btw, nice image, I've used it on my user page. GreyHood ^Talk 23:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

lol - This would be the first time I was an honorary member of anything in my life (and I'm not young). Go ahead.--INeverCry 23:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Take the honorary membership, INeverCry! You deserve it! I'm going to sign up myself, once I get my username changed. Lirika filosofskaya (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Well, here you are and here as well. GreyHood ^Talk 00:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Greyhood for the welcome message, I have a question for you on my page once you have time. Не спешите. Lirika filosofskaya (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

You said on Amendment page: "Biophys ... find it inappropriate to provide links to some old attack pages". What are you talking about? Thanks, Biophys (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

At some arbitration discussion in the last two months you were talking that you were concerned with some harassment on-line, not on Wikipedia but connected to it (sorry, I do not remember the wording exactly and I'm too lazy to search for it now). Lothar von Richthofen suggested that you was talking about some old attack page and he even named the site. Paul Siebert advised him to remove that information from the page, which Lothar did. GreyHood ^Talk 23:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

On that particular case, the information was removed without your intervention. But I believe you do not find it appropriate to mention it in discussions and provide links to it. GreyHood ^Talk

Thank you. Now I see what you mean. Actually, it would be great to delete my entire talk page (where this external web site links to, just as I did with my user page). But unfortunately, one of administrators told me that they would not do it. Biophys (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mikhail Golant

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thx! GreyHood ^Talk 11:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Greyhood/Archive 2011 July-December: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Kto khochet stat' millionerom?

1. WP:V states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Therefore your belief that "this all looks like true" is completely irrelevant, even if you had some basis for venturing it. (Do you speak Russian? Have you ever watched this programme?)
2. The material in question had been tagged since June, without any attempt at sourcing.
3. WP:V goes on to state that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You have not met that burden, so your restoration has been reverted.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Request

Could you spare my articles from those god-awful asd patches? My watchlist is a ruin. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a necessary evil. I'm doing assessment for WP:RUSSIA, and you have created so many articles in the topic. Thanks. And if you would ever have seen my own gigantic watchlist, you'd understand what is truly god-awful ;) GreyHood ^Talk 19:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think mine is any shorter. Who cares about these advertisements, anyway. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good ol' grumpy Ghirla is back :) Getting older and grumpier with each day, I see :) Are you here for long or just visiting?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 6, 2011; 19:57 (UTC)

Also having 40,000+ articles on yours? Cool! Well, these are not just advertisments. This is topical sorting of the content of a large project, an it allows creation and usage of a number of bot instruments on the task force pages, such as per-topic article alerts, featured content lists and popular pages (PP) lists. If you haven't seen the task forces and PP lists so far, check the Template:WikiProject Russia/Navbox. GreyHood ^Talk 20:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Blog sources

I can understand the limitations of blogs as sources and maybe that needs apply here. However, the journalist in question had written a substantial published profile of Alexey Navalny here in April and seemed to have done a thorough, and appropriately proscribed (small but serious scope), job on one election site. You've left her blogwork elsewhere in the article and elsewhere in related articles: Is there a gray area (no pun intended), or had you just focused on the biggie? I'd appreciate a little insight. Thanks. I'll come back here for any answer. Swliv (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know that the blog sources are mostly not allowed. If there are more blog sources in the article, they should be removed as well. That part of the article draw my attention originally because it was a description of a small incident at one particular poll station, which might be WP:UNDUE. GreyHood ^Talk 00:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The biggest off-limits here at Wikipedia:Blogs as sources seem to be "self-published" and "opinion" blogs. My point with the profile link is that the blog is associated with a substantial publication that's publishing the writer's work not only online but in the publication. As to "Undue", that's why I said "appropriately proscribed". Yes, it's just an example. But I don't think I overplayed it. All said, though, I'm leaving it in your court. I think you're being excessive but I'm not going to fight it for now. You're closer to it than me? Prob. that's part of it. I'd recommend you look into the sources, though. For now .... Swliv (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blogs as sources is a failed proposal, not a policy. GreyHood ^Talk 01:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not repeating what is clearly stated in the referenced page. You didn't cite any policy re: blogs. You said they're "mostly not allowed". I've tried to discuss the substance of this blog. I don't see you doing that yet. Swliv (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I carried this exchange over to Talk:Russian legislative election, 2011#Deletions by Greyhood. Over there (and in the subsection "Blogs as sources"), Greyhood cited WP:Reliable sources but was contested, too, on the particular blog discussed above. Greyhood also made note, there, of the coverage of the 1996 Russian presidential election. It seems there was a "wrong" in coverage in 1996 when the election "went the other way". While I add this comment to keep the record complete, I find myself leaning back to "leaving it in [Greyhood's] court". I also add that the high-level public dialogue around these issues has helped "carry the load" for me, if one will allow, for the time. Time to move on? I'm not sure I'm saying that, but it's possible. Swliv (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not exactly understand this your post here, especially the last three sentences. Better continue the discussion at the subsection "Blogs as sources". GreyHood ^Talk 16:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#2011_Russian_protests

There is a discussion of your editing behavior at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#2011_Russian_protests. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

State Duma Elections 2011

Hi Greyhood, you cited this article [10] as reason for one of your edits. Have you fully considered this article? To my understanding, the last paragraph of the article refers to a different exit poll conducted by the institute of social research that gave simiar results as the retracted FOM exit poll. I could not find a note of this other exit poll having been retracted. Alex 46.14.79.222 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a line under the title: Ранее распространилось мнение, что этот exit-poll подтверждает фальсификации на выборах (Earlier the opinion was spread, that this exit poll supported falsifications on the elections). So this is not a different exit poll. GreyHood ^Talk 18:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't really see how this sentence under the title makes any sense. To me, it looks like an overly mutilated version of the "Ранее в социальных сетях распространились мнения, что таблицы убрали из-за того они подтверждают фальсификации на выборах." in the first paragraph.

Also, what about the last paragraph and this [11] exit poll?(my initial question) As stated in the aritcle, they agree give or take a few percent. Alex 46.14.79.222 (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyway it is the same poll, since the phrase "Ранее в социальных сетях..." also points at this fact. The last paragraph is written in the past tense "Как сообщало ИА МОССОВЕТ...", so it refers to the report on that poll on the 4th November, [12]. The last line of the fist paragraph is strange, though. If they retracted the poll (which has shown similar results to the other poll) as unreliable (which is stated in the article), than it doesn't make sense that their data are coinciding with some other data. Looks like they just copied that line from some initial report on two polls and haven't removed or edited it.

What do you mean by "As stated in the aritcle, they agree give or take a few percent"? GreyHood ^Talk 20:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning

You have engaged in edit warring and have exceeded the 3 revert limit:

• 1st revert: [13]
• 2nd revert: [14]
• 3rd revert: [15]
• 4th revert: [16]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Greyhood_reported_by_User:Fred_Bauder_.28Result:_.29 User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC), direct link User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

On the fourth time I just inserted the new information, which rendered the previous stuff outdated (the new place and numbers were announced, different from the old ones). I've made a technical self-rv now, but you might have shown more sense in judging the situation. Insert the new info on your own if you like. GreyHood ^Talk 20:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A source that may be of interest to you

Hi Greyhood, I came across a source that may be of interest to you in relation to Holodomor articles. It's from the CIS Institute, and information is contained in pages 43-48 of this (archived link). Cheers Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 02:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's indeed is of interest to me. I know the author, but I haven't known about this publication. GreyHood ^Talk 11:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Lists

Take a look at this: User talk:Sturmvogel 66#Questions. I asked him about making the List of Russian inventors and the List of Russian artists Featured Lists. The list of inventors is monumental. I also asked him and a few others whether or not our (mostly Evermore's) literature articles had a shot at GA or FA, and there seems to be hope. I just needed something to keep me interested. It'll probably be a while before I nominate any of our articles.--INeverCry 03:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you here again! Well, promoting something to GA and FA requires a bit of work. If you are set to promoting some particular list to GA, just tell me, and I'll help with references and other issues that will be identified during the procedure. As for Evermore's articles, some of them obviously deserve FA status. GreyHood ^Talk 12:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why I keep saying inventors; I meant the List of Russian explorers. I'm not going to go off half-cocked, so I'll take some time to look into it.--INeverCry 18:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you nominate the list, I may help in translating reference titles there. Just hope the list is not too long. GreyHood ^Talk 18:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that it meets the criteria. If I nominate it and it doesn't pass, it's no big deal.--INeverCry 19:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I also think it should meet the criteria. GreyHood ^Talk 19:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the first step would be a peer review. I'm going to wait atleast a few days, so I can look through the list and see if it needs any copy editing.--INeverCry 19:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Good. When something starts, provide me with links to peer review and nomination pages please. GreyHood ^Talk 20:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've started doing copy edits, but with the size of the list this is going to take me quite a while.--INeverCry 03:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Assessments

I meant to ask you this a while ago, but forgot. Since you are currently the one doing the bulk of the assessment job, could you perhaps also address this list? Some of the items there are quite old (and some are probably already taken care of). Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 12, 2011; 14:49 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, will take care of that later. GreyHood ^Talk 14:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done GreyHood ^Talk 18:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominated

• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Russian explorers/archive1

I went throught the list and did all the needed copy edits and disambigs. I've nominated it, so here we go. I'll rely on you for all the technical details. Good luck to us!--INeverCry 06:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. GreyHood ^Talk 12:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I went through the list and removed "famous", "well-known", "great" etc. I also removed the see-also section from the lead and transferred the 2 see-alsos to the see also section. BTW, Fyodor Tolstoy and his ink-spreading orangutan are the best entry on the list by far!--INeverCry 18:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks! I tried to add some adventure flavor to the list ;) GreyHood ^Talk 18:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I can do the flags.--INeverCry 23:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Good, thanks. I'll not return to the work on the list until tomorrow evening, so you are free to go on it now. GreyHood ^Talk 00:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the A section. Should I do it like this?--INeverCry 00:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I think it makes sense to delete the names of states as well, except the cases with immigrants when it should be written "(born in Denmark)" etc. And seems there should be no double newlines like in Albanov entry. GreyHood ^Talk 00:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do. That's alot easier for me.--INeverCry 01:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Done.--INeverCry 02:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, that significantly decreased the size of the list. GreyHood ^Talk 11:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I went through the lead and made the needed changes in grammar.--INeverCry 20:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The lead is very well done btw.--INeverCry 21:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making the corrections. It was easy for me to write the lead having all the knowledge I acquired during the composition of the list itself. You might like to help with some other listed issues, though it seems GreatOrangePumpkin intends to fix most of the technical ones.

But I thought perhaps you would like to search for the free images to fill the empty portrait positions, or help in uploading some non-free images with fair-use licenses. For example, here we have a bust of Ivan Moskvitin, here we have Pyanda, and here we have Pyanda and Kurbat Ivanov. Some of the Soviet era guys could be found via the references provided for their entries. GreyHood ^Talk 21:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. I've uploaded 50 or so fair-use images of Soviet writers, but only for use in their articles. I wasn't aware that fair use applied for multiple uses on lists or other related articles? I've seen fair-use images of Yuli Daniel, Andrei Sinyavsky, and Sergei Dovlatov removed from my writer lists.--INeverCry 21:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we could allow fair use on one or two additional pages other than the main article, on the low resolution and adding the relevant fair use rationales to the images. Often there are rationales for several pages on fair-use files. GreyHood ^Talk 21:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Pics

• File:Ivan Moskvitin Bust.jpg
• File:Demid Pyanda.jpg
• File:Kurbat Ivanov.jpg

I'll put the pics here as I upload them. I'm uploading the fair use images with my standard article use rationale, and putting them in their respective articles. You can add the other uses to the rational and add the images to the list and any other places.--INeverCry 00:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that tomorrow or so. GreyHood ^Talk

Please don't; these are all invalid under the Non-free content rules. Modern copyrighted imagined portraits of historical figures are always replaceable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, Pyanda and Ivanov are, but Moskvitin seems to be a work of sculpture of the age unknown. GreyHood ^Talk 01:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean that has some more substance, usually the historical persons of unknown looks become identified with monuments to them, and this seem to be some kind of an old sculpture from a museum. GreyHood ^Talk 01:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

In that case, we'd have to consider potentially two copyrights: that of the sculptor and that of the photographer. If the sculpture is old (likely), that part would be okay, but the photograph is certainly modern and therefore copyrighted, and it's clearly replaceable – with another, self-made, photograph of the same statue, if nothing else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I've done more research and see that this sculpture must be no more than 50 years old, and the sculptor is a living person. Will search for his contacts. The sculpture should be located somewhere in Khabarovsk.. Now it should be likely deleted, but later I'll try to get a permission perhaps. I still believe that the sculpture would be the most relevant illustration, since there is a tradition to identify historical persons with such sculptures, and in this sense it is unreplaceable. GreyHood ^Talk 01:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor mediation issue two

Hi Greyhood, this is a boilerplate message to let you know that we have moved on to issue two of the Holodomor mediation, victim estimates. At the moment we are accepting statements from all participants, so if you want to make your position on this issue known, then now would be a very good time to contribute. Your statement should be no longer than 200 words, and should include both your opinion on the issue and what you hope will be addressed in the mediation. We will be accepting statements until 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC), or until we have statements from all spokespersons. Please note, however, that even if you miss this deadline you are free to contribute to the mediation at any time. You can find the appropriate section on the mediation page here. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In List of Russian explorers, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Koch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

List size

Considering how huge the List of Russian explorers is, I wonder if the information about places and things named after individual explorers should be removed? This would be a considerable reduction in size, and the information is only supplemental. As it is, the list always loads slowly and/or temporarily crashes my browser, and edits take a long time.--INeverCry 01:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the information is relevant. But I also think that we should try to make the wording more tight. Also we could remove few of less notable explorers. GreyHood ^Talk 10:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That info may be somewhat relevant, but it's extra. The list is at 266,000 bytes, and that info takes up atleast 40,000 bytes, if not more. Our removal of the origins took off 10,000 bytes by itself, and that was a much smaller ammount of text and links. When I look at the list I'm interested in an explorer's key acheivements and discoveries, but I don't even read the places that were named after them. It just doesn't seem important enough to justify such a large ammount of text and linked words. I could understand having that info in explorer articles, but on this list it looks like clutter. The removal of less notable explorers is a good idea as well. The only reason I suggest the removal of that info is to make the list easier to load and navigate, so that potential readers don't get frustrated with it. I also wonder if the reviewers might not think the info superfluous, and a size of over 200,000 bytes excessive?--INeverCry 18:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise solution, I could suggest important things named after explorers to stay (such as seas, mountain chains, famous ships, islands), but remove less important and trivial info, such as streets etc. I'll see to that later. I agree that we also should try to use shorter descriptions. GreyHood ^Talk 19:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish there were easier ways of downsizing. Another concern I have about the named places notes is that they indicate the level of importance of particular explorers. Those explorers who have nothing named after them look obviously less important than those who do. But in the end, my main concern is size. Would a reviewer give the list FL at 200,000+ bytes?--INeverCry 20:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on delinkings and things named in honor. See how I have done A and B. I think we could de-link all mentions of Russian/Soviet Navy/Army and remove all phrases such as "X explorer" or "explorer of X" from the second column (colorcoding and information in the third column is enough). Could you help with the latter tasks? GreyHood ^Talk 21:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The de-linking should be pretty easy for me to do.--INeverCry 22:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Also, we don't need Russian Imperial Army/Navy, just Russian Army/Navy. GreyHood ^Talk 22:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the A and B sections of Explorers. I've taken out the bolding and small tags from the short descriptions in the second column. Good or bad idea? Taking them out for the whole list might mean a reduction of 6000 or 7000 bytes. Im trying to find ways of reducing size so that the page will load faster. The size is down to 233,000, but I'd like to see it get down under 200,000. Even 200,000 is pretty big though, and will still load slow. I've also removed alot of repeated and common links. I don't know enough about Russian exploration to remove any entries, but this might also be needed.--INeverCry 03:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OK with the idea of removing small tags from the second column, and double br tags also should be removed from there - but not in the cases of portrait captions. See how I have fixed A and B. Also, we should not remove links from the image captions, that's very inconvenient. GreyHood ^Talk 13:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm finished removing tags. I also did alot of unlinking over the past few days. We've removed almost 50,000 bytes! The load time for viewing and editing has gotten better, and I'm not getting any more temporary browser crashes.--INeverCry 20:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Good! I'm reducing the size of text in M now and need a few days to finish the other letters. GreyHood ^Talk 20:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry X-Mas etc

I guess Christmas comes after the New Year where you are, so Happy New Year and Merry Christmas!

I don't know if the "List" will make FL, but either way it's looking better and better every day, and is one of the best lists around, star or no star. Atleast it gives us a bit of experience in "featured" matters. BTW- I didn't see your note about the images until now; the Laxman one is especially nice. If there's a free image available, I'll find it! I take requests, so if you need a pic, leave me a note.--INeverCry 18:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! GreyHood ^Talk 19:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just looking at Бём's works yesterday. I'll see about uploading more of of them. I'll also see about the authorship of this particular Christmas postcard. If I can't find anything myself, I can ask Triumphato over on ru.wiki. I also uploaded 2 paintings by Mikhail Bocharov (File:Mikhail Bocharov 1.jpg and File:Mikhail Bocharov 2.jpg), a painting by Николай Грибков (File:The Dressing Table by Gribkov.jpg) who has no article on him anywhere, some paintings by Сергей Грибков, another painter with no article, (here), and a couple by Михаил Боскин (File:Mikhail Boskin 1.jpg, File:Mikhail Boskin 2.jpg) who also has no article. I haven't had time to see if any of these can be used here.--INeverCry 20:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice works by Boskin. And the first classicist pic reminded me this classic. GreyHood ^Talk 20:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I found an attribution for the postcard right here on wikipedia: Russians#Culture.--INeverCry 20:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol, it was me who added that picture to that article right after you sent it to me Perhaps I'm too bold to claim the attribution, it might not be Bohm, but it is certainly Bohmish style. GreyHood ^Talk 20:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha Ha! I couldn't find any attribution sources searching, so I'll ask Triumphato when I get a chance.--INeverCry 20:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded 25 Bem postcards today. More to come.--INeverCry 01:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded 12 more.--INeverCry 01:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Will see if I can use them to illustrate some articles later. GreyHood ^Talk 20:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Captions

I guess the duplicated link should be removed from the entry itself, rather than the caption of the image? For instance: with the entry for Pyotr Anjou we have a link in the text of the entry to New Siberian Islands, and the same link a couple inches away in the image caption.--INeverCry 23:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, I think the link is very important both in the text and in the image and we shouldn't remove it. Also, it takes just 4 additional bytes, which is really not that important - even if we remove all such links from the list we'll have less than 1000 bites cut. GreyHood ^Talk 00:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Let me know if there's anything else you need me to do.--INeverCry 00:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

We still need to convert references from A to O to cite templates, like it is done from P to Z. I asked GreatOrangePumpkin to complete the work, but GoP seems to be on holiday. If you could help with the task (at least with some of those references), that'd be great. GreyHood ^Talk 00:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I did A-B-C except for 3 refs to articles #18, #19, #20 (rbd, sbd, and Encyclopedia Brittanica) as I don't know if these need a cite temp. All other refs in A-B-C are done. I should be able to do more tomorrow.--INeverCry 02:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

All book and web refs are done from A to N.--INeverCry 21:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll fix some titles of those refs later. As for the links #18, #19, #20 we might just use the information on the latest editions, and perhaps the website in the case of Britannica. GreyHood ^Talk 21:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think all refs A to Z are now in cite templates. You'll have to go through and check to make sure I didn't miss anything.--INeverCry 22:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Russian explorers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Koryak, Central Russia, Krusenstern Island, VDNKh, Trans-Siberian and Chkalovsk

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

check this out, please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gritzko (talk • contribs) 08:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainian collage troubles

PS: Are you the man at the left on this picture? (Just kidding  !)

An IP-editor tried to remove the (I must say beautiful and excellent) collage you made in the infobox of Wikiarticle Ukrainians twice today. I thought since you made the collage you should know this. I already have started an discussion about this here. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I'll try to watch for that page more closely. GreyHood ^Talk 21:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Greyhood/Archive 2011 July-December: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of Russian explorers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kodiak and Alexander Nevsky Cathedral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)