Hello, Ivan Volodin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
I don't use the Inkscape, as I have a professional tools set at my office. But I see a template creation would be a better idea.
See Bulgarian topic. But how it is possible? We have too much too small urban units, even units splited. (Bulgarian divisions with no Slavonic suffix!).Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a location map with rayon level divisionsFile:MO 5.svgIt is not correct map: Kh - is not a district, Le - in two pieces, but noted 1, the cities are not labelled, labels are not descripted, rayons abbreviations - your original research, this type of map is not common in Wiki
Thanks. On Bulgaria, the problem with templates is that they cannot be resized if I am not mistaken.
On suffixes, Ezhiki may be right in that Bulgarian provinces and Polish voevodships correspond to oblasts, the latter being also without suffixes, while lower-level divisions might not have any establishe English names.
On my map: Khimki - easy to fix. Leninsky - do you mean that two Le's are needed? Original research - hardly. This is only for illustrative purposes and I believe it is more useful than a clean map. Thanks for the version without municipal okrugs, will try to work on that one. Ivan Volodin (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a lot of counries has the abbreviations established, Wiki user will think it is with rayons too, but your work has no official nature, but nobody knows that. Much better is a simple numbering (number in the table corresponds to the map), so you don't need decode your abbreviations - you and me can understand them, but common user from NYC? And Leninsky is divided in two parts and not western part belongs to Leninsky, but easten also.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think letters are easier than numbers - at least for people with education in humanities rather than in science :) . And I can mention that the abbreviations are not official. Ivan Volodin (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this kind of map is reasonable for the Moscow Oblast as a number of rayons are deeply inside the region, far from its bundaries and seperated with 2-3 rayons from oblast outskirts. I think the numbered map (as it is for Austria) can be a better decision.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use the Inkscape, but black squares are the font problem, I guess. You can open the svg file with any text editor and check the font names for the text features. An other possible problem source can be text background color filling (if this can be programmed in svg format). But I'm sure (if you can locate rayon labels) the clickable labels are the best option. I've started the Moscow oblast template creation, with clickable numbers for rayons and cities. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rankings and average attendances are both OR, and in my opinion should be removed as well (the rankings already have been). Scenarios refer specifically to what will happen as a result of what, and so are valid. The does (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The scenarios are clear, spelled-out sentences describing what would happen. Your edits were a gigantic table with little to no explanation to the reader of what anything meant. The does (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "provisional standings" you're referring to. I said I supported scenarios. Your edits were both OR and incomprehensible; I merely stated one of these at first and then brought up the other. Do you think that, "to many", it would be easier to understand the meaning of "RUS < AND and IRL > ARM" than to understand the same meaning, written out in text? Or for them to have to refer to "notes" located outside of your table instead of reading all the details in a coherent sentence? I think not. I appreciate your efforts but the contributions were deleted for good reasons – OR and lack of comprehensibility are just two of them. The does (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can you justify "RUS < AND and IRL > ARM" as "having the advantage of being understandable to people with various levels of knowledge of English"? How likely is it that the average non-native English speaker reading this section would know of Andorra and be able to form the connection between "AND" and "Andorra"? Nowhere on any football tournament pages are the FIFA codes ever used, since they are considered jargon and difficult for the non-footy-expert to understand. Sure, anyone could scroll up to Group B on the same page and see that the only country that would possibly be abbreviated to "AND" is Andorra, but that would be wasteful of the reader's time. It isn't our place to assume things of readers, so it is best to write things out in coherent sentences that most readers, rather than a select few, will understand. The point is, "RUS < AND and IRL > ARM" is not at all at least as comprehensible as "Russia lose to Andorra and Ireland defeat Armenia". Furthermore, I'm not the only one who reverted your edits. I did it the second time; someone else did it the first time, after which you reinserted the content. There may be different opinions, but you and your opinions are in the minority in this case. I'd say 50% of those people who advised me to stop deleting content had flawed arguments themselves (I'm looking at User:TBM10). I'm all for discussion, but when something's quite clearly both OR and hard to comprehend, and is considered as so by other editors as well, then my instinct is to toss it. The does (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ivan Volodin. You have new messages at Qed237's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I have re-removed your headings - Wikipedia does not work that way. As you can see we have a lovely discussion and your headings are not needed or wanted. Please do not re-add them. GiantSnowman21:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They absolutely serve a purpose: for people not to go in rounds with the same arguments. If your problem is the headings format I have used, please suggest another solution. Since this is a summary of discussions held elsewhere, then probably put them into a grey box? Or start a separate talk page so as not to overload the main one? I categorically reject your deletion of it - your opinion of what is "needed or wanted" (by whom?) is only yours. Ivan Volodin (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You out invites to a lot of people but not to me who has been discussing with you? I hope you kn w that you should invite everyone and not only those you believe are on your side. Please read WP:FORUMSHOP. QED237(talk)22:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I do apologise, indeed. When I started to send invitations, I just copied all those who participated in the four previous "big" discussions. I should have looked at it more attentively, but I kind of assumed that you would be among those, so didn't check specifically. You will have noted that I have invited all participants of those discussions, including Dr.Vicodine and other opponents of scenarios. Again, sorry. Ivan Volodin (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no worries. I have now seen that you invited people from "both sides", I was just a bit angry after last nights UEFA matches and thought that you might have skipped me for a reason. Sorry for jumping to that conclusion way to fast. QED237(talk)11:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for inviting me, I have written my opinion. You might want to invite the user Zirath also; he was keeping the "Next matchday"-scenarios running on his talk page throughout the FIFA 2014 qualification. Lars Ransborg (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are going a little overboard on that RfC. There's a line between vigorous debate and tendentious editing, and I feel like you are treading close to it. Gigs (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will do my best not to cross the line. I wonder however whether you could also comment on the behaviour of those participants who neither reply to particular questions related to their opinions nor are willing to enter into any compromise agreements. Ivan Volodin (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there are other editors who are also treading on the edge of our behavior guidelines. Don't let them draw you into doing the same. Gigs (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You posted in my talk page the below post on the conclusion you made in the discussion. Can you show me exactly what conclusion you made? Thanks. :) Kiwi8 (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Hi. Sorry for disturbing you again. Thank you for participating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios and for your support. I have proposed a conclusion that addresses the concerns of many participants regarding reliable sources. Would appreciate a comment"
Kinda hard to convince those stick-in-the-muds. :(
As a result of the ANI, I had a quick look at the original talk page discussion and although it wasn't careful enough to reach a detailed conclusion plus I don't think I have the experience, I see a strong sign of consensus against your actions. Considering that, I would urge you to refrain from continuing with your edits as it's likely to be disruptive. (In any case, remember that per WP:BRD, if your bold edits addint content are clearly disputed you should generally continue discussion until you achieve consensus for or against them using the various forms of WP:Dispute resolution available as necessary before reimplementing them.) If you still disagree with the consensus, it may be okay to continue with the original discussion but bear in mind WP:DEADHORSE, WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Bear in mind for something as nitty gritty as this, and considering WP:NOTBURO there will probably never be any carefully worded guideline, just a general consensus to be implemented by common sense. Nil Einne (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI discussion ended and got archieved. A archive is not a place were you make comments afterwards (it is a "storage") so I have removed your comment. If you want to discuss the matter at ANI again I think you can open a new discussion referring to the old one saying you want to re-open it. QED237(talk)22:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, very nice. Of course I will not open a new ANI discussion (after all, you initiated it, and it brought no reaction from admins), but feel free to do it if you want to pursue the ANI procedure. Only don't forget to copy my reply into the new discussion. Ivan Volodin (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Victuallerstalkbackis wishing Ivan Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger
Hello, Ivan Volodin. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I will remove the pairings for now, you are right. I'm sure that GER will be playing the late game if they win (won't happen). See also Note, Order of the games with "tbd" in place of the team match-up will be decided by IIHF Directorate upon completion of the previous round. per official site. Kante4 (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ivan Volodin. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA European Qualifiers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi! Great work on the article, make sure to add some references!
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|FatalFit}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
It's a notable article, but could be trimmed down by not going into excessive detail about ICJ elections in general. I would be interesting specific outcomes/events of 1954. A wikilink can be made to link to more general procedures
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Shushugah}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 22:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
