User talk:Ezhiki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Yo? Yo!
The Signpost
25 February 2015

Archived talk: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Happy New Year Ezhiki![edit]


I was just about to slap up this same template, but Iryna beat me to it... Atleast I was the first to steal it for use on Commons. Face-wink.svg Have a great 2015 old friend! I just wish Greyhood was still around so I could leave him one... INeverCry 22:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah well, INeverCry, it's the thought that counts. I'm going to slap one on your talk page. Just consider me a template hog! Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I got to protect both the pics, so nah nah! Face-tongue.svg Happy New Year to you and yours too Iryna! INeverCry 00:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, folks! I hope your new year is filled with joy and productivity as well :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 5, 2015; 14:08 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Aleksandr Samoilo[edit]

Happy New Year to you and Ym! Can either of you find a source and something to add?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you as well! I've added a link to the encyclopedia article on the Russian Ministry of Defense site, but didn't do anything to our article. This military stuff always bores me to death and I'm not very good with it; sorry! Anyone should be able to use the information at that link to expand the article, however. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 6, 2015; 21:28 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #139[edit]

List[edit]

Hello, again, friend. This may be awfully close to the kinds of questions I've asked you before, but on the page of List of cities and towns in Russia by population, it mentions that these are cities ranked by their city propers and not metropolitan or urban area measurements. My understanding of "city proper" in the context of where I'm from means a measurement within the boundaries of a defined administrative/municipal division. However, it appears that may not be the definition on this page for every city. What does "city proper" mean in the Russian context, and can this be made a bit more clear on that page? Like we discussed at length with Sochi, it seems that for some of these cities (more specifically the ones where there may be multiple settlements in one division) while we're definitely talking about a measurement contained within an administrative or municipal division, it might not be a population measurement of all of the settlement territories within those boundaries. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Hope your new year is going alright. To answer your question, in the context of Russia, "city proper" refers to the territorial entity (whose boundaries may or may not be identical to the boundaries of the administrative or municipal division which contains the said city). Typically, when an administrative/municipal division only contains one city, the borders of that division and of the "city proper" (i.e., the territorial unit) match, but exceptions do happen. A city may have other territories in its jurisdiction (which are not within the "city proper"), and those territories may or may not contain other inhabited localities. And as far as the population figures go, Census reports them for both the "cities proper" and, separately, for the administrative/municipal divisions. List of cities and towns in Russia by population includes only the figures for "cities proper", as it should. Does this answer your question?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 9, 2015; 16:20 (UTC)
So, "city proper" is a contiguous settlement area within the boundaries of an administrative/municipal division division. I guess my only other question is in a city like Sochi, clearly, the Russian statistics agency clearly distinguishes between a city proper and the administrative area. What about Moscow on that list, though? Is that a territorial measurement or a measurement of the population with the administrative boundaries? I ask, because in recent years, Moscow has annexed huge tracts of neighboring districts/cities, and the urban area isn't always contiguous. Are places like Moscow and St. Petersburg the exception to the rule? Do they use total administrative boundary population even when there are multiple non-contiguous settlements in these huge metropolises? --Criticalthinker (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Ignore the above question; I didn't read the page well enough. I see a note was made about Moscow and St. Petersburg. --Criticalthinker (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, Moscow and St. Petersburg are indeed a special case and an exception to many rules which apply to other cities. Their internal structure can also be quite vague and not always well-defined—this is especially true about the status of the localities they comprise. The definitions are better for the newly annexed territories, but something like the territorial status of Zelenograd may very well be worthy of a whole research project. Zelenograd is definitely considered to be a separate city by some sources, equally definitely not to be a separate city by others, and the whole thing is largely ignored by most sources whenever they can get away with it. The definitions of the status of Moscow's few rural localities (pre-annexation) are even worse. The pertinent laws are very vague, with no incentive to improve the wording since little other than academic interest depends on clarifying the issue!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 9, 2015; 17:25 (UTC)
I'm just getting around to going down the list to see if there is anymore exceptions, and as soon as you get to #5 (Nizhny Novgorod), the population given for the city proper is the same population for the entire administrative city despite it clearly stating on the city's page that along with Nizhny Novgorod proper there is one resort settlement and twelve rural localities. I assume that the population of these other settlements combined is very small, but it seems to tell me that the measurement or city proper is not at all consistent even apart from the notable exception of the federal cities. I imagine if I go down this list, I'll find other population figures that are supposed to be for city propers but are actually for the entire administrative city. Is this the fault of how the Russian government measures the city propers, or the person who transcribed the list here on wikipedia? --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean? The number in the list (1,250,619) is the same as what's in the Nizhny Novgorod article (although there was a typo in one of the instances which I have just corrected; it was off by only four people anyway), and that's the number for Nizhny Novgorod proper. "City proper" populations are the only ones included in the Russian city articles. The population of the administrative unit (i.e., of the city of oblast significance of Nizhny Novgorod) was, as of the 2010 Census, 1,259,738, but nowhere in the "Nizhny Novgorod" article I can see a statement that the population reported there is for the administrative unit. Could you clarify what made you think it was?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 12, 2015; 15:54 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #140[edit]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with…
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Manturovo, Kostroma Oblast (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
14 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Lugar (country subdivision) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
153 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Washi (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
33 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Police division (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: List, Predicted class: Start Vypolzovo (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
144 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Oblasts of Russia (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
321 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Free trade zone (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
232 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Principality (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
177 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Cleanup
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Le Saulchoy (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Lachaussée-du-Bois-d'Écu (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
5 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Raray (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
1,663 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Aldi (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Unencyclopaedic
267 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Five-year plans for the national economy of the Soviet Union (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
109 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Abkhaz–Georgian conflict (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
29 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Capital territory (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
36 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Overseas territory (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
10 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Serbian folklore (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
242 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
156 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA War of Dagestan (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Wikify
112 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Tsarist autocracy (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
1 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Kuleshovka, Rostov Oblast (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
1 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Grigoropolisskaya (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
1 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Temizhbekskaya (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
2 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Hem Bunting (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
1 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Bykovsky, Sakha Republic (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
2 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Dieudonne, Oise (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
7 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Chèo (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
17 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Nam quốc sơn hà (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
19 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Okręg (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Quote tags[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Quote tags. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #141[edit]

Novosibirsk Collage[edit]

It's back, re-uploaded as a new image. I started a talk page discussion. I don't know how to go about reporting this or getting a more permanent fix. Maybe request a block on the IP? Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll respond there. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 20, 2015; 14:52 (UTC)

Bazin[edit]

Many years ago, you created Базин as a redirect. I've marked it as a redirect from Russian.

  • Is it actually Russian? I certainly recognize Cyrillic, and it exists as a redirect page on ru.wikipedia.org, but I though I'd ask.
  1. It redirects to a disambiguation page, is there something more specific that it should be directed to?Naraht (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Naraht! First off, I should clarify that Bazin is not a disambiguation page; it's a set index (on last names). Given the hatnote and the entries under "see also", it could be made into a proper disambig, if the last name material is consolidated on a separate page and linked to.
The redirect (which is indeed in Russian) was created in 2009 when, if I remember correctly, there was a consensus that native Russian spelling of the last names should redirect to appropriate pages. I'll have to re-check if that consensus still stands, but in general, retaining such redirects doesn't seem to be unreasonable. Still, I don't quite remember what compelled me to create that particular redirect—even in 2009, the "Bazin" page did not contain any Russian entries (the Russian last name romanized as "Bazin" is unrelated to the French last name "Bazin"). If an article about a Russian person with this last name is created, the redirect can be pointed to it, and if more than one such article is written (the Russian Wikipedia has three), then it's probably best to leave it pointing to the set index. Does this answer your question?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 20, 2015; 14:49 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-04[edit]

18:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #142[edit]

Tech News: 2015-05[edit]

16:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Astrakhan[edit]

Your editing is disruptive. You haven't explained why you think three different population figures are important enough to be mentioned in the lead. You haven't explained why you want to quote every one of them to six significant figures. You haven't understood that "sourced" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion in articles. And you are repeatedly and dishonestly not mentioning that you are reverting every part of my edit. What exactly was your problem with the words "which is" in this edit? Kindly start behaving properly. 200.83.136.145 (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear anonymous editor. First of all, hello. Second of all, it is actually your editing that is disruptive. And I'm not saying this right off the bat to tell you off—as an IP editor, who is presumably new to Wikipedia, you can't be expected to know all the rules and guidelines we have in place. But if you only read one of our guidelines, please make it this one (well, technically not a guideline, but it's full of good pointers about acceptable behavior, general policy, and common courtesy). It will explain to you that while everyone is welcome to make any edits they deem to be helpful/useful/reasonable, if such an edit is reverted, the next step is not re-reverting (and then re-reverting again, and then again), but rather discussion. Well, better late than never—I'm glad you started such a discussion now.
For my part, I tried to do my best to explain the reasons for reverting you in my edit summaries. Per that same BRD essay above, it is one's expectation that if such an explanation is insufficient (the space in the edit summary box is, after all, limited), the other party will follow-up on the article's (or user's) talk page.
So, with that out of the way, let's look at the merits of your edits. If you look around Wikipedia, and at the articles related to Russia in particular, you'll see that including several most recent Census figures (and occasionally estimates) in the lede is a common practice. Clearly, most people have no problem with this approach, and those who might, don't see it as a big one that needs to be fixed right away. As far as cities and other populated places go, a recent population count is one of the most basic attributes that needs to be included. And since it's a hard number, making it clear where the numbers came from is not optional. As for the previous population counts, those show a trend—something especially important in the context of Russia, where the population is generally decreasing, so any place with a stable or increasing population is an outlier that needs to be pointed out (ideally, with the reasons explained).
With that in mind, does it mean that the lede is always the best place to include this information? Hell, no! Your concern is a perfectly valid one; it's the way you went about addressing it that's problematic. The main purpose of the lede is to summarize the article. That's all well and good for well-developed, long articles, but every now and then, it is important to include the information, yet there is no place in the text to include it. Making a very short section only to repeat its contents in the lede is a practice that's not encouraged, so most of the time this kind of information is simply appended to the lede. The population information in particular would normally belong in the Demographics section (in which case including only the most recent population count in the lede would be perfectly acceptable). There is no Demographics section in the Astrakhan article, however. And, as I said above, creating one only to include three Census figures is not not a good practice either. So, what is one to do then? Well, it's simple, really. If your interest in Astrakhan is truly genuine, perhaps you'd be interested in writing up such a section, which would include not only the three figures, but perhaps a short paragraph about the population development, ethnic composition, or other such matters? It doesn't have to be very long (a paragraph or two would definitely suffice), but it would not only address your concern, but will be a great improvement of the article, which is, after all, the desired outcome. And if your knowledge of this area is insufficient to write a whole section (mine certainly is), another possible solution is to aggregate the Census figures in a table and stick it after the infobox, "sectionless", so to speak. See, for example, this article where this solution is employed. The formatting may look a bit daunting, especially to a (presumably) new editor like you, but I'll be more than willing to help out on that front; just ask! Finally, the sentence (or even the "non-sentence" which so got your goat) with all three figures can be left in the lede until such time when a knight in shining armor—one who knows everything about the demographics of Astrakhan—appears out of the ether and does things the right way.
As you see, just like I said in my edit summaries, there are multiple ways to go about this situation, all of them equally acceptable. What is not acceptable, however, is fixing what you perceive to be a cosmetic problem (too many numbers! too many sources!) by cutting the problem out. In that you behaved like a cosmetic surgeon whose solution for fixing an ugly face is cutting the head off. Problem solved, yes, but has it actually benefited anyone? Removing sourced information is never a good idea, and removing it repeatedly is not only disruptive behavior (see how I wrapped it up to the beginning of this conversation?), but actually a blockable offense. You do get quite a leeway due to being new and all, but stubbornly persisting with reverts cannot continue indefinitely.
As for rounding the numbers, doing that simply has no practical benefit (cosmetics aside). Russian (and before that, Soviet) Census numbers have always been reported with the accuracy to one person, those are the numbers supported by the cited source, hence that's what's used in our articles. Readers who don't need that kind of accuracy can easily round the figure themselves, to whatever accuracy they desire, and those who do need the exact numbers will have them readily available (as opposed to having to dig through the original source in a language they may only have a very basic familiarity with).
Well, this came out a bit longer than I hoped it would. The bottom line: I will now reinstate the original version with all three figures. The main reason for that is the fact that removing sourced information (which is expected to be there, because it's there in every single article about Russian localities) and offering nothing in return is unacceptable. If doing that results in a lede that looks so ugly to you that you toss and turn at nights, you are welcome to either write the Demographics section and move the numbers there, or to move them to a standalone table. Should you choose that path, my offer to help with technical aspects (should you need any) still stands. And if it's the overly precise numbers that bother you so, you are welcome to open a discussion to revisit the general approach used to handle them (Astrakhan is just one of the hundreds and hundreds of articles where Census figures are reported with their original precision). WP:RUSSIA would be a good place to start. If there is a consensus to round the numbers, it will be implemented. I, personally, see no practical use for doing the rounding, for the reasons I explained above.
Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2015; 14:57 (UTC)
Hello to you too and thanks for replying. First off, I'm not new to Wikipedia. I've been editing it for more than a decade. You start by telling me to read the essay called BRD; my opinion on that is that it has caused incalculable damage to wikipedia and must have driven off vast numbers of people whose sensible edits got reverted by people who didn't understand them properly, and used this idiotic screed as a justification. And vast, vast numbers of people revert IP edits simply because they are IP edits. Either they don't bother to even read them, or they feel a sense of aggravation that someone who they regard as an interloper has touched "their" article. I'm not saying that's the case here; I'm just saying that there is a vicious anti-IP culture at Wikipedia, despite its claim to be the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and that people often go to extraordinary lengths to undo improvements to articles, simply because they were made anonymously. However, it's clear that you didn't read my edits fully because you twice removed changes other than what you mentioned in your edit summaries.
Your reasoning starts from a fundamentally flawed premise. You've said several times "do not remove sourced information". The mere fact of something being "sourced" is utterly inadequate as a reason for retaining it in an article. It's as laughable as saying "do not remove correctly spelled information". Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion.
Your second flawed premise is that somehow removing flawed text could be "unacceptable". Now if a sentence contains a misspelled word, we correct the spelling rather than delete the sentence. But if a sentence contains irrelevant trivia, we remove the irrelevant trivia; there's no other solution. The population of Astrakhan according to the most recent census is encyclopaedic and relevant. And if you really think the sixth significant figure is meaningful then you can insist that it be specified to that (certainly unwarranted) degree of accuracy. But the population at the two preceding censuses is not interesting or relevant. If you think there's something important to be read into the numbers, then say what it is. But otherwise, removing that useless information is necessary.
Now someone took it upon themselves to protect the article, falsely claiming "Persistent disruptive editing". So your misguided revert will stand for now. But if you seriously think that deleting bad material is "unacceptable", and that sourced material should not be removed from articles simply because it is sourced, then you're not following the core policies of the encyclopaedia. That is a problem that goes way beyond this one article. 200.83.136.145 (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
You are quite right that it is not uncommon for people to revert IP edits just because they come from IPs. That is sad and wrong, but true. And yet, I don't see how this regrettable practice has anything substantial to do with BRD. If one's edit is in good faith (as yours clearly was) yet is nevertheless reverted, there are either other problems with it, or there is a disagreement in place which needs to be resolved. Either way, discussion is a necessary next step. If after ten years of editing you think this approach is "idiotic", I'm not sure there's a way this situation can be resolved to your satisfaction. Insisting one's vision is the only correct one and everyone else must be reverted/is interpreting policies incorrectly/uses an idiotic approach is exactly the kind of behavior that perpetrates the "[nearly] all IPs are vandals and trolls" attitude, thus completing the vicious circle. Luckily for us, your disdain towards BRD notwithstanding, we are having a discussion here.
So let's get back to business of discussing, and start with the "removal of sourced information", which is my main grievance. You are absolutely right that the mere fact of something being sourced is an inadequate reason for retaining information. A piece may be thoroughly sourced and verifiable yet still remain unencyclopedic, out of place, misleading, POVish, or have a whole host of other problems. There is a multitude of situations when removing a sourced piece is not only acceptable, but indeed necessary. It all, however, boils down to the reasoning for removal, and that is what needs to be policy-based or have a consensus. As things stand (as I explained previously), lack of usefulness and over-preciseness are not policy-based reasons. The former is a completely subjective one, while the latter does not have a consensus (note, for example, that the vast majority of articles about populated places in the English Wikipedia report the population figures to one person, except where the precision of the source for those figures is lower). Similarly, retaining the accuracy of the most recent census but rounding the ones that precede it is not the usual practice. And I did agree with you that having all those numbers in the lede is not an ideal situation, as well as explained several possible solutions to remedy that; solutions which do not require a complete removal. Short sentences tend to grow into sections, and sections tend to grow into separate articles. If precise Census counts were included in the demographics of Astrakhan article, you probably wouldn't have a problem with that, would you? Well, the sentence which you were trying to cut is actually the progenitor of that future article, a seed which may eventually grow into a beautiful tree. If you trample on that seed now, maybe another one will be planted months or years after you lose interest in this article, but the damage will have been done all the same. It is precisely this kind of damage that's been labeled "disruptive behavior" by the editor who imposed protection. Don't ever remove anything that can be fixed; only remove things which can't be fixed. It's as simple as that.
P. S. This edit of yours should not have been reverted; this one is completely my oversight, for which I apologize. I have re-instated it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 2, 2015; 15:24 (UTC)

Stevan Lieberman[edit]

Hi, any chance you can restore the article, a very notable lawyer who got deleted wrongly by G11, probably because of something within the article which they disagreed with. I'll give it a read for POV or tone or whatever once done to ensure it really complies. It was very well-sourced too. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Here we go. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 30, 2015; 15:23 (UTC)
Thanks, an idiotic deletion by an insufferable editor (Red Pen of Doom). Lieberman is very notable in his field. I must do some more work on legal bios sometime, we should have so many more of them on wikipedia. If the US coverage isn't terrific, imagine what law and lawyers for many other countries is like. How are you anyway? How is that database getting on :-) ?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I, too, am not convinced this is an "advert". Surely one can't cover a notable lawyer without listing his cases, and it's not like this article has "call me at this number now and get a 25% discount" messages plastered all over it! Thanks for taking care of this. Me, doing fine, more or less; thanks for asking. Lots of crap going on in real life, but what else is new. The database is getting better with every passing day :) Don't know if you've noticed, but I'm on to urban-type settlements now, plus doing additions to the district articles in preparation to the next stage (selsoviets and such). It's slow but steady.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 30, 2015; 16:42 (UTC)
Excellent work! Do you think at some point we'll at least have articles on all of the selsoviets? Obviously some of the larger cities and towns in Russia might be high priority but it would be great to have decent coverage across Russia. These days I'm not so much into every village being covered regardless of quality, but eventually I do stick by the notion of having a decent article on any place on the planet, and I think it's what we should be striving for ultimately. In the near future I think it might be a good thing to get a Russian city up to GA status. Can you think of a couple which would be worth it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. We will absolutely have articles about all selsoviets; no question about it. It is when we have them that's the issue :) I did run a few test cases, and it seems that unless we want to make a complete mess out of it, we absolutely must sort out and organize the selsoviet articles titles first (meaning dabs, set indices, hats, lists, and whatnot will need to be created; in parallel the same will need to be done for the low-level municipalities). There's a lot of preliminary tedious work to be done, but this didn't stop me in the past, so no reason why it should stop me now :) In the end, if we could have something like this for each selsoviet, I'd be a very happy camper indeed. It is so much easier to add actual encyclopedic information to articles which already have stable structure. Sometimes editors genuinely want to cover something, only to get bogged in all those formatting/organizational details. Having a solid carcass in place really, truly helps.
As for GAs, any city article would be worth it. It's not like Russia doesn't have an ample supply of those! There's something there for anybody—whether you are into improving an article about a big, important city like Nizhny Novgorod, or into smaller places with somewhat obscure, but still interesting histories, like Tsimlyansk.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 30, 2015; 17:10 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Enid Blyton[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Enid Blyton. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #143[edit]

Tech News: 2015-06[edit]

16:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

User page protection request[edit]

Hi Ezhiki, thanks for sorting out the little thing on my user page. The vandal is someone who has for a long time been vandalising a large number of football team articles by adding ridiculous kits in the infobox. Looks like he has started on my page as well now! Could you protect my page for a couple of weeks just so it is one less thing I have to deal with please. Cheers. Fenix down (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. Semi'd for two weeks. Holler if you decide you want to lift it before it expires (or if you need to up it to full protection). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 6, 2015; 00:35 (UTC)
Cheers buddy! Fenix down (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Grammar[edit]

Thank you for your replies, and for correcting my grammar; I'm glad about the occasion to learn. My Russian is really rusty, so I had to take out my old textbook and reconstruct my memory. My onerous chain of thought was that (a) "for" corresponds to "для", (2) для demanded the genitive, and (c) that would be "губерний"; where was the wrong step? — Sebastian 16:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion! There really was nothing wrong with your line of thinking. If you translate the "for other" part to Russian, then "губерний" is indeed the correct form you'll have to use (but it shouldn't have been capitalized, although that's a minor point). My onerous line of thinking was that when one uses a Russian word in the English text, it should always be in nominative (plural nominative in this case). And since yours was also capitalized, I immediately jumped to the conclusion that you simply copy-pasted it from somewhere, so I might as well make it flow better. Had I known that you actually can speak some Russian and were trying to use the correct case on purpose, I would have never made that correction! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 6, 2015; 16:13 (UTC)
Actually, I did copy-paste the stem (since I currently don't have Cyrilic KB installed), and forgot about the initial. :-)
So, do you speak some German? The "Igel" in your name makes me think so. — Sebastian 16:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
No, not really. I did study some German years ago, but was never good at it. I can ask for directions in broken German with a hilarious accent, or even order something in a restaurant (although I wouldn't feel comfortable unless I back it up with a finger jab at the appropriate line on the menu), but I'd never claim I know German. That, and, as it was politely pointed out to me by a native speaker of German a while ago, "Igels" in my signature makes no sense whatever, but by that time I felt it was too late to change it to "Igel" :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 6, 2015; 17:05 (UTC)
Just like my Russian! Too bad someone pointed out the plural thing already, it would have added so nicely to the symmetry in this section. :-) — Sebastian 17:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, yeah. And while I have you here, does "Igels" in my signature look truly weird and awkward to a native German eye? Like, if someone had a similar signature with a Russian noun in, say, dative for no apparent reason, that would have really grated my eye—is it how my signature looks to you? Because if it does, I might correct it after all!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 6, 2015; 18:06 (UTC)
I don't mind; I'm used to the letter "s" coming and going between German and Russian; it disturbs me less than when I first noticed the missing "s" in "Санкт-Петербург". It took me a while to notice that your sig contained German. We are a real melting pot of cultures here, so I don't expect to find pure specimens of language in people's names. And signatures are even more of a place for individualism and creativity. (To wit: The marriage of French and Russian in one word in your signature.) Personally, I'm of the school that simplifies, rather than embellishes signatures, so I don't normally pay much attention to those of others. I just see it as playful. But many Wikipedia editors have a keen eye for spelling details and may not enjoy the playfulness in others' signatures, so yes, for them it's probably grating to their eyes to see the genitive form here. But before you change it, I should say that the hedgehog itself isn't necessarily all positive in German. The term "sich einigeln" ("заёживаться"?) refers to people who retreat from others, forming a prickly ball. (As a boy, one disturbed my sleep: I was sleeping on the ground in autumn, when I woke up from a shuffling and sniffing noise, and noticed a hedgehog that seemed to wanted to sidle up to me because of my body warmth. I was so afraid of his spikes that I woke up from every moving maple leaf for the rest of the night!) I don't think any German would name their child "Igel". Maybe you could go all the way with the joke by making a fake Germanic name such as "Igelbert", "Igelher", "Igelfried", "Igulf", or "Igelbold". — Sebastian 16:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page as of 06:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC). If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.)

Wikidata weekly summary #144[edit]

René Fehr[edit]

Care to restore? I suspect he's notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

He might be. However, the deleted article contains nothing but one sentence that he is a "Swiss painter", unsourced date of his birth, a link to the personal website, and a dead link to a Zürcher Unterländer article. I can restore this to your userspace, if you'd like, but not in the mainspace, since it would make it an unsourced BLP. Let me know.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 9, 2015; 13:20 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with…
826 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Professional wrestling (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
27 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Rzhev (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
891 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Add sources
4 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Buy, Kostroma Oblast (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
2 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub State Committee for Standards and Product Quality Management (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
77 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: Start Udmurtia (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
13 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: A State Council of Crimea (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
365 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Typhoon-class submarine (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
13 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Temirtau (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
1,020 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Donetsk (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Expand
61 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Khakassia (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
58 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Engels-2 (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
160 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: GA Feminine beauty ideal (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
16 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Abazinia (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
24 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Crimea (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
117 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: List, Predicted class: Start Northernmost settlements (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
8,214 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B War in Donbass (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Merge
236 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: FA Unmanned combat aerial vehicle (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Merge
9 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Nazarbayev Center (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
84 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start White Russia (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
106 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Alexander Nevsky (film) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
1 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Dalniye Zelentsy (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
2 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: Start Selim Aga (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
0 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Ostrov Bolshoy Oleny (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
1 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Andreyevsky (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
2 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Shamkhal, Russia (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
1 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Keptin (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
9 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Communist Party of Social Justice (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
12 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Sunshine City, Tokyo (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
1 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Botulu (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-07[edit]

16:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Admin Nom[edit]

Hi Ezhiki, Any chance we could delay creating this until Monday, some stuff has come up this week and I don't think I will be able to dedicate the required time before then. Fenix down (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Monday it is.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 11, 2015; 12:56 (UTC)
thanks a lot, that should give me time to prep some answers to the initial pro forma questions and I should be able to spare an hour a day in the evening to deal with any follow ups. Fenix down (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #145[edit]

Tech News: 2015-08[edit]

17:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sakha Names[edit]

Yo, where are you getting these from? Is there a list you can share, please? Fenix down (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking about Taymylyr? The Sakha name had already been added to the lede by someone else; I simply copied it to the infobox. On other occasions, I was taking them from the Sakha (and occasionally Russian) Wikipedia. I don't have an actual list, though. Sorry!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 17, 2015; 16:04 (UTC)

That's a good point I should check ru WP for them. Fenix down (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Improper italicization[edit]

I've never understood the rationale for using those ital-loaded templates when mentioning previous historical names in other languages, be they German, Polish or whatever. Some techies dreamed up the template format, not people versed in history or in expository writing and editing, IMO.

I've been fighting a twilight battle against it for years. Sca (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, with proper design, templates like that could be quite useful. This particular one, however, was created for one purpose (and by a non-techie, by the way, which is likely why it's not as functional as it should be) and is usable only under a certain set of circumstances, which are not satisfied in that article. Hence all the problems. Anyway, there's a more generic {{audio}} template, which seems to be somewhat more flexible. Perhaps we could use that one. I myself have always found having audio pronunciation of foreign names useful, but there are, of course, multiple ways of including it. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 19, 2015; 16:26 (UTC)
Please go ahead and substitute the more generic audio template. Спасибо. Sca (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, done. Please let me know if you see any issues.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 19, 2015; 17:11 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #146[edit]

Tech News: 2015-09[edit]

16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Urengoy[edit]

Any chance you or Ymblanter could add an infobox and some details to this? Spotted it on my world map :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's on my to-do list, along with other urban-type settlements. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 25, 2015; 14:38 (UTC)

Sakha Census Data[edit]

Ezhiki, can you confirm to me whether this is what I think it is, namely 2010 census data broken down by village? Fenix down (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you double-check the URL, please? I get a "file not found" error when I follow the link above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 24, 2015; 18:27 (UTC)
Is this any better? Fenix down (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Yup, that one works. This is indeed the results of the 2010 Census, by individual localities (according to what the footer says). A great find! May I ask which page of the Sakhastat website this file is linked from?
They also have this file, which only lists the same entities as what's on the municipal compilation of the main 2010 Census results, but it also has 2014 estimates added, which may come in handy as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 25, 2015; 14:27 (UTC)
I saw that one too, that site looks pretty detailed, do all sub-national divisions at that level have similar gks.ru sites? Unfortunately, I am not sure what page it came from. It was an xls file linked directly in one of the ruWiki articles. Looking at the site, the links you would think might hold it seem only to have more recent data files. Fenix down (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they all have similar gks.ru sites; although the accessible data collections are rather inconsistent (plus you never know what good stuff they have accessible deep within but not linked properly from anywhere; like this file).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 25, 2015; 16:01 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #147[edit]

Tech News: 2015-10[edit]

16:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)