User talk:Greyhood

/Archive 2008-2010

/Archive 2011 January-June

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)

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)

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! 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)