User talk:Greyhood

/Archive 2008-2010

/Archive 2011 January-June

/Archive 2011 July-December

Meaning of 'asd'

Hi there. Mind if I ask what 'asd' means, e.g. in this edit?

I understand your edit, but wondered what the letters stood for.

I looked for wp:asd but found none. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah - guess it's short for assessed. Trafford09 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. GreyHood ^Talk 17:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Nikolai Smirnov

Howdy, Greyhood.

Regarding your recent move of Nikolai Smirnov (Soviet Navy officer) to Nikolai Ivanovich Smirnov: not long ago, I moved the article in the opposite direction, for the reason that people looking for a certain Nikolai Smirnov is much more likely to know his profession than his middle name. Don't you think so? I mean, if people are presented a list consisting of

• Nikolai Aleksandrovich Smirnov,
• Nikolai Andreyevich Smirnov,
• Nikolai Borisovich Smirnov,
• Nikolai Dmitriyevich Smirnov,
• Nikolai Ivanovich Smirnov,
• Nikolai Mikhailovich Smirnov,
• Nikolai Nikolayevich Smirnov,
• Nikolai Vassiliyevich Smirnov,
• Nikolai Viktorovich Smirnov,
• Nikolai Vladimirovich Smirnov,
• Nikolai Yevgenovich Smirnov, and
• Nikolai Yuriyevich Smirnov (and be sure that all these will be here eventually),

unless they knew his middle name, they would have to sift through the whole list – well, on average half the list – to find the right guy, wouldn't they?

See also this page, that went through WP:RM: Talk:Vladimir Smirnov (skier) – unanimously.

What do you make of this line of reasoning?

Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• The dab page, Nikolai Smirnov, already contains all the needed short descriptions, and that page is something that most people would get while searching for Nikolai Smirnov. The redirect Nikolai Smirnov (Soviet Navy officer) is not really needed even there, though may be left to enhance the search (and it will remain in the drop-down list in the search form). "Soviet Navy officer" is too long and inconvenient descriptor to use, and such descriptors make the article titles look nasty and present the subjects as something extremely secondary, which is better be avoided. GreyHood ^Talk 20:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  If you check this category, you'll find a lot of "British Army officer" disambiguators. Apparently, all are not troubled by that length of the dab. And, what if there is another Nikolai Ivanovich Smirnov? That is not unlikely at all, in fact, several of the Vladimir Smirnovs share the same middle name. Then we would still have to dab this guy. Talk about long and inconvenient article name. I think, generally, dabs are preferred. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  If there is another Nikolai Ivanovich Smirnov, than we have to use a dab descriptor, but until then we don't need to. Patronymic is a nicer looking dab solution, and redirect in the search form and descriptions on the dab page solve all problems. GreyHood ^Talk 21:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  Have you discussed this anywhere, or is this just your personal opinion? At least I had a WP:RM going "my way" (you did check, didn't you?). Maybe we should bring it up at WikiProject Russia or some place? HandsomeFella (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  It is my personal opinion and quite a general practice with Russian articles. With that RM, the "skier" is relatively short and convenient, and the patronymic is not enough there since we have another Vladimir Mikhailovich Smirnov, not only that skier. GreyHood ^Talk 22:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  I have opened a new section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Hi! You may want to comment on this. Artem Karimov (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity

Hello, I can see you have added a number of Russian sportists categories to persons who already were in categories for Latvian and Soviet sportists. I am curious on the definition you use on adding these persons to the categories you have added them? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Generally, most Soviet national teams are considered predecessors to Russian national teams since Russia is the successor to Soviet Union. That's why those people, even if they are ethnic Latvians, are important for Russian sport. Some of them actually seem to be of Russian ethnicity or have Russian surnames, though born or living in Latvia.

In some cases however, I may just have overestimated connection of the particular persons to Russia (I'm doing the editing very fast and may overlook some information), so please revert me where you feel necessary. GreyHood ^Talk 20:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay no problem, I've reverted some of your edits related to Estonian sportsmen. --Nug (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, sounds reasonable. I am not that familiar with sports topics, so perhaps someone else will revert where necessary. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

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

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

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Assessing

I've noticed that you have added WikiProject Russia tags to Estonian sportspeople articles (like this). Why? I know they have competed for the Soviet Union, but they have nothing to do with Russia. So please stop doing that, I have reverted you edits as much as I have found. Thanks! Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Explained in the talk above. Russian national teams are continuation of the Soviet ones, and ethnic Russians in Estonia have something to do with Russia. GreyHood ^Talk 16:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

WPRU unassessed articles etc

I did some assessments but there were a few that require your expert attention.

I noticed our FL dreams were shattered. I've lost whatever interest I once had in GA and FA. I'm going to stick with stub, start, and C class. ;) Our lists are better than most though imo. INeverCry 20:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We may try to nominate the list of explorers later, when we have more inspiration for that.. Most of the work is done already.

I'll take a look at your assessments soon. GreyHood ^Talk 21:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

These are the ones I was referring to:

• Talk:History of Bashkortostan
• Talk:History of Crimea
• Talk:History of Dagestan
• Talk:History of Tatarstan
• Talk:Transportation in Moscow
• Talk:Sergei Udaltsov
• Talk:World Economy and International Relations

INeverCry 21:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've assessed those articles. GreyHood ^Talk 22:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject tags

Please stop adding inappropriate WikiProject tags. Being drafted by a KHL team, or playing in the league for a short period of time, does not make an article within the scope of WikiProject Russia. By your standards, every NHL player would be part of WikiProject United States, and every woman part of WikiProject Women's History. Prolog (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I try not to put WikiProject tags on those who played just one or two seasons in Russian teams. Feel free to revert me where you feel necessary. GreyHood ^Talk 23:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Herzen etc

I just wrote a short article on Alexander Herzen's novel Who is to Blame?. Considering the "top" importance of Herzen, I wasn't sure whether Who is to Blame? should be "mid" or "high" importance? I've rated it "mid" for now.

I also have someone trying to delete one of my images: File:Vasiliy Shukshin 7.jpg. I hope it doesn't get deleted, but I only cropped it from a supposedly pd image, so I don't know about the copyright. We'll see. INeverCry 21:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm, unlike "What Is to Be Done?" Herzen's novel is not studied at schools and is relatively unknown except for its title. So I suppose Mid-importance is enough.

It's the same in English. The copy I have in my bookcase might be the only one in the whole city (I live in a city of 300,000 people ;). INeverCry 23:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As for the image, I doubt the photo on the stone is PD, but you may try uploading it to en wiki as derivative work per example here. GreyHood ^Talk 22:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The only other Shukshin related pics are of statues and monuments. I wonder if these would prevent me from uploading a fair-use portrait, in case the pic now in use ends up being deleted? I have a nice color portrait of Shukshin I wish I could upload. INeverCry 23:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not try? They use this fair use pic at Russian wiki. If you upload another one at low resolution to en-wiki, that should pass fair use criteria. GreyHood ^Talk 23:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good (if it becomes necessary). I was thinking of using this pic. INeverCry 23:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

4 reverts

Here you reverted (in whole or in part) for a fourth time - this will lead to an automatic block. I suggest you undo your last revert. (FYI, I've removed the info multiple times for BLP issues - something allowed in the 3RR).Malick78 (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll self-revert Malick, but you are so openly gaming the system and this behavior noted. You have made four reverts yourself under the false pretense of BLP, which you never proved nor gained any kind of consensus for that. And that's with my last edit actually containing removal of the "insinuating" part. GreyHood ^Talk 23:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The consensus to keep the material needed to be found on the talk page. You didn't gain it. Thanks for self-reverting. Please assume good faith and don't accuse others of gaming the system.Malick78 (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. GreyHood ^Talk 23:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Strangely, you don't like that test when applied to yourself and your political views, do you? Nuff said.Malick78 (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, political views is too complex thing for simple tests. But I have no problem with applying any those tests to me. I have a problem with behavior of such users, who make their "tests" and after receiving their "results" too often fail to keep neutral and constructive discussion and editing with respect to their opponents, and continuously try to use those "results" as "arguments" (ad hominem). GreyHood ^Talk 00:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your hard work on Russian related topics. :D

LauraHale (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's truly very nice GreyHood ^Talk 01:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

Pyotr Kapitsa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Icecap

Sergey Kapitsa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Icecap

Vostok (sloop-of-war) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Okhta

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Andrey Kapitsa

Hello! Your submission of Andrey Kapitsa at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Potential superpowers

Hello. Brazil has again been proposed for deletion from the article Potential superpowers. I would appreciate your input at the article's talk page. Limongi (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have some new sources related ti Brazil, so just add them to the article, and that may solve the problem. GreyHood ^Talk 01:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

More information needed about File:Sukhoi KR-860.jpg

Hello, Greyhood!

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:Sukhoi KR-860.jpg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.

If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again!Template:Z136 --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Пу́шкин

I added a few of the most interesting of the images to the Pushkin article's gallery. If/when the article is expanded, I'm sure better use can be made of them. INeverCry 04:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! GreyHood ^Talk 02:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Andrey Kapitsa

Orlady (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thx! GreyHood ^Talk 13:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Vostok (sloop-of-war)

Materialscientist (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thx! GreyHood ^Talk 14:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mirny (sloop-of-war)

Materialscientist (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thx! GreyHood ^Talk 14:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of cited content from Lavrenti Beria

Please do not continue to do blanket removals of cited content from the article Lavrenti Beria. This is the second time you have completely removed an entire section of properly sourced and in-line cited text. I posted a talk page message the last time you did it. You ignored it.

If you have additional sources (beyond the ONE source you approve of, Beria's family), please add them to the article alongside the others so that we can get a broad and inclusive collection of information on the subject. You don't get to simply delete 3 reliable sources you don't like without any kind of discussion. Why don't we stop and have a discussion about adding to the article instead? Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I've notified WikiProject Military History about the issues with the article so that we can get a fuller consensus and some more eyes on that page. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any discussion at WP:MILHIST. And as far as I know, it was a different user who removed the section before me. Also, I do not see why you reverted the rest of the edit to the version which uses POVish language. GreyHood ^Talk 12:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:World Without Nazism

Could your comment there (in the last section) be considered as a response to my request for comment (above)? Fuseau (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure it can, especially regarding the points of 1) allegations in neo-Stalinism, 2) bias towards a single point of view of the opponents of the organisation, which is a wrong and NPOV-failing approach to the article. If I have more time later around the weekend, I may address your RfC in more detail. GreyHood ^Talk 21:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ioasaph of Belgorod

Many thanks for your help. My Russian is quite elementary and I was astonished to find how little there is on Ioasaph on the English-language internet. Moonraker (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you translate this?

hello,

I can not translate this (seems to be old-church slavonic or something similar):

изряднее рабом уходства удерживает, татьбы извещает и уличение яве творит

Or explain in Russian :). Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)}

Hey that's a pretty complex thing ;) The sources give the phrase in the following context: В «Сказании о святых» этому угоднику полагалась особая молитва об обретении украденных вещей и бежавших слуг. В Прологе об этом угоднике читается, что он «изряднее рабом уходства удерживает, татьбы извещает и уличение яве творит». [1]

Basically they prey to this saint about the return of stolen things and servants who fled. I believe the phrase itself could be translated like this: "[he] better prevents slaves/servants from fleeing, warns about theft and makes evident revelation [of thieves/stolen things/people who fled]". GreyHood ^Talk 19:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, nice, I like the translation :) Thanks!--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 20:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)}

Removal of External Link

Hello,

I noticed you removed the link to International Futures from the Russian country page, and I wanted to start a conversation with you to see if I could clear up what you take issue with. For starters, International Futures is the world's largest integrated assessment model for global forecasting. As with any futures studies, this project could be written off as taking a crystal ball mentality, but I encourage you to take a look at some of the outputs from this group to judge their conceptual foundation for yourself:

United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Reports - here's the latest http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2011/papers/HDRP_2011_08.pdf

The African Futures Project with the Institute for Security Studies - http://www.ifs.du.edu/assets/documents/Africa%20Futures%202050%20ISS%20Pardee%20IFs.pdf

The UN's Global Environmental Outlook - http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4.asp

The US Institute for Peace - http://www.usip.org/publications/vulnerability-intrastate-conflict

The US National Intelligence Council, Global Scenarios 2025 - http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_global_scenarios.html

And their work is hosted by Google's Public Data Explorer (Although I've been told that this data is not as current as their website) http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=n4ff2muj8bh2a_

It's difficult to find independent sources that verify their work (I'm not sure that such a thing truly exists), but I think that some of their clients and projects may speak to the quality of their work. I have seen International Futures of the UCB Library's International Organizations page, which may lend the project some validation. I've been in touch with International Futures to get this list of some of their recent work, so if there's any other questions regarding their work I can give you their contact information, or I could contact them on your behalf.

I've been given the green light by the Wikiproject: Countries community to post external links to the model on country pages, but as with any Wikipedia editing, it requires consensus. I think that it's a tool that has a great deal of utility, and the forecasts add something new and interesting to country discussions. As far as I am aware, this is the only place where these policy planning tools are freely available and open source. This project seems to place significant emphasis on transparency, which is part of the reason that I place such value in it. As with any data project, keeping data up-to-date is an endless process. However, it seems to me that International Futures does a commendable job at keeping its data sources relevant.

Sorry for the long message -- I feel like the topic requires a full response. I look forward to hearing from you! (Shredder2012 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC))

I wouldn't give green light to this one, sorry, even though I'm a great fan of futurology etc. Most figures of demographic and economic predictions for the term of more than 20-30 years (one generation) are mostly pure speculation in my opinion, even if they are based on extrapolations of some credible statistical data. Of course, they might be interesting etc., but I doubt most such predictions have encyclopedic quality.

As for the predictions page for Russia, [2] it is all plain wrong and outdated from the very beginning. Take the first figure "Population - Mil People 2012: 141.2" - it is 2012 already, the population of Russia is 143 million and is growing according to Rosstat, which is the provider of all the basic statistics on Russia used by Russian and international organisations. All the current Russian population statistics (birth rate, death rate, life expectancy, fertility etc) for 2011 is much better than predicted by International Futures for 2012, and there are no reasons why everything should get so much worse in one year when the current dynamics is positive.

It looks like they in International Futures just have taken some outdated figures and extended the trends based on them into the future, resulting in a highly pessimistic demographic scenario (similar negative scenarios made for 2000s have been already proven false; they failed to account the improvements in late 2000s thanks to the increasing number of potential mothers, delayed births, improved level of life and government support).

More problems are found in the other sections of that predictions page. Why shouldn't the smoking rate substantially decrease in Russia like it did in Europe when the Russian government currently is gradually implementing the tighter restrictions on smoking?

When it comes to economy, why the 2012 figures of GDP (both nominal and PPP) are so much lower compared to the data in the List of countries by GDP (PPP) and List of countries by GDP (nominal), while the current growth forecasts are positive?

Such predictions based on outdated data contradicting to the current situation and to the current short term trends are not credible, and if there are similar problems with predictions for other countries, they should not be added to any country articles. GreyHood ^Talk 23:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. If I could, I'd like to try to address your concerns one by one. It seems to me that each of the issues that you've highlighted are difference of opinion about data sources used or assumptions.

1. Foremost, your claim that forecast beyond one generation (20-30 years) is mostly "pure speculation" is not true of the scientific community more generally. For instance, reputable publications like Nature or Science use long-term forecasting for population, the environment, energy and education. There is clearly a scientific basis for these forecasts, and there's an interest in long-term forecasting in the policy community, too.

2. The difference in population figures is a matter of sources. According to the World Bank, the total population of Russia is exactly the same as International Futures. [3]

3. In regard to the smoking rate, it could obviously substantially decrease over time, but the male smoking rate is astonishingly high in Russia relative to many European countries. [4]

4. The economic data is substantially different, because the forecasts use 2000 dollars and the sites that you referenced use 2005 dollar values, thus the discrepancy.

In all, you obviously have a point. Forecasting is difficult, especially over a long time horizon. That being said, it is an accepted practice of the international scientific community. The problems you highlighted were not really problems - they were differences in opinion about data sources or assumptions. The forecasts for Russia are not overly pessimistic and are a useful tool for policy planning and analysis. (Shredder2012 (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC))

The World Bank data is outdated too, apparently it doesn't even take into account the results of the 2010 Russian Census. Forecasts based on these figures are not credible. We could bring much more recent data from Rosstat, and not just one pessimistic forecast but much more tentative Rosstat forecasts presented in three scenarios (high, middle and low, that is optimistic, middle and pessimistic - and so far the population growth has been more close to high scenarios). However I wouldn't include any long-term predictions to this article, be it external links or demographics section. The existing long-term predictions give too large range of figures, this is very uncertain speculation, which I believe fails WP:FUTURE (the International Futures predictions for Russia in particular fail it because the basic data is outdated, and it highlights only one negative population scenario). GreyHood ^Talk 01:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The point of forecasting is not to predict the future, but to frame uncertainty through the best modeling approaches available. International Futures is the largest integrated model available, and, as I documented earlier, is used by a range of governments and international organizations. Clearly people who make policy find these tools useful, whether you do or do not.

If the Russian Census of 2010 is not included in the World Bank data, that's an issue for the World Bank. It's likely that the World Bank either hasn't incorporated the results, or they have a problem with the Census methodology. In any case, the difference is less than 2 million people, which is not significant. The purpose of forecasting is, again, not to look into a crystal ball and say what's going to happen. Instead, it is to structure relationships and plan for uncertainty.

Finally, you keep mentioning "pessimistic" and "optimistic" population scenarios. I assume that you mean low and high projections. Clearly low population numbers are not necessarily better or worse. They're better and worse for different things. But this is the point of forecasting: to think systematically about relationships and interactions. Higher populations mean more energy consumption, more need for government spending on education and health, more environmental pressure, etc. (Shredder2012 (talk) 04:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC))

Framing uncertainty supposes lower and higher figures, not just one low figure.

In this case, failing to notice the additional 2 million people by ignoring the recent positive tendencies eventually results in the long-term forecasts of tens of millions of people lower than they might have been. And similar negative forecasts for Russia, made in early or mid 2000s so far have profoundly failed. I see no reason why one should take seriously yet another pessimistic scenario based on outdated data and simplistic extrapolation of outdated demographic rates. GreyHood ^Talk 17:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The tool does provide a range of uncertainty. See here:[5]

The model is not a simple extrapolation. It is an agent-cohort integrated assessment approach that is the state-of-the-art in the field. It is certainly not simple.

You don't see the utility in long-term forecasts, though it is seen by many people who make big decisions, see a Russian example here: [6] that was used to brief Putin. Cheers,(Shredder2012 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC))

The range is too close and the current situation as well as recent tendencies already show that these forecasts are flawed. GreyHood ^Talk 12:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

new article

I just did a new article on the painter Osip Braz, whose portrait of Chekhov is well-known. I don't know where he would go on the List of Russian Artists, so I figured I'd ask you. I've asked Leningradartist to help me find a better portrait of Braz. INeverCry 01:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose why not insert it in the list? GreyHood ^Talk 12:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason I asked was that I had noticed that there's a long list of painters on the List's talk page. I'll put Braz on the List itself. INeverCry 17:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I added Braz. I also noticed that some image captions on the list are in itallics while some aren't. It looks a bit strange. INeverCry 17:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The list may do with some copy-editing, sure. GreyHood ^Talk 21:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Russia Barnstar of National Merit
		You've earned this award because you truly have strong dedication to help out on anything regarding regarding Russia. Take this as a gift for your hard work. Care to give me one too? I too help out a lot with Russia-related stuff :) Abhijay What did I do this time? 11:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Nice to earn a barnstar right when I've mostly completed a major piece of work! GreyHood ^Talk 20:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Youre welcome Greyhood, I hope you like it! Keep up the hard work! :) Abhijay ^{What did I do this time?} 01:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries - Putin

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

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

Vladimir Putin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to FSB, Sambo, Swimming, Black belt, S-300, Blueberry Hill and State Council of Russia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Note

Greyhood, you've been mentioned here [7] and not in a good way, and I think you'd need to do something about it real fast... Abhijay ^{What did I do this time?} 03:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

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

Prozhektorperiskhilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Roberto Carlos and Projector

2011–2012 Russian protests (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Manezhnaya Square

Troika (driving) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Troika

Zhirinovsky's ass (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sadist

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of redirect banners

I noticed that you removed all the WikiProject banners I added to the redirects of Dissolution of the Soviet Union. I'd like to know why, given that both banners have a specific parameter for identifying redirects.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

We do not assess redirects in the WikiProject Russia, they blow up the project's article statistics and watching over them is rather pointless. GreyHood ^Talk 19:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Why "redirect" is an option for the class parameter then? Apart from that, you removed both banners, not only the Russia-related one.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it is inherited from {{WPBannerMeta}}, on which WP:RUSSIA's banner is built. Individual WikiProjects don't have to use all of the functionality of that parent.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 16, 2012; 19:10 (UTC)

Well, Ezhiki has perfectly explained why the redirect parameter is there. And let it remain there, just in case. As for the Soviet banner, feel free to restore it if you really find it important. It's just that I assess lots of Russian and Soviet articles and generally apply similar principles for the assessments. GreyHood ^Talk 19:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for your responses.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Vladimir Putin. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	for simply being one of the best and most productive editors I know. Nanobear (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

		The Human Rights Barnstar
		For your work on making the article on Vladimir Putin as good as it is. Toddy1 (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both! What a nice choice of barnstars! ;) GreyHood ^Talk 18:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion please

What do you think of this website Information Agency "Ruspres"?

How I learned of it was a mention of an article on the S-400 surface to air missile system.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an extremely yellow compromat collection. Titles, banners are often made in non-neutral way inappropriate for serious professional journalism, and so is the language of some "news". The content is a mix of real things, unconfirmed or unclear stories, or claims which later have been fully or partially refuted. While some particular stuff on this site may be credible, as a whole it certainly does not look like a reliable source. GreyHood ^Talk 17:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Donkey Votes Zhirinovsky.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Donkey Votes Zhirinovsky.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Monument to Babushkin.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Monument to Babushkin.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Khrenov.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Khrenov.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:White Cheburashka.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:White Cheburashka.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Vostok sloop model.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vostok sloop model.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For you. Mootros (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! GreyHood ^Talk 09:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Zhirinovsky's Ass.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zhirinovsky's Ass.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mootros (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

O осла или о заднице...

Hi. You said you were ready to accept "donkey," could you please indicate this by adding "support" under the 1st move? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem with WP Russia assessments

I tried to assess this article as b-class: Talk:Anastasiya Vertinskaya, but for some reason it shows up as c-class, even though I put a b in the class parameter. I had the same problem here Talk:Polish–Soviet War, where I typed in a b and it showed up as c-class. INeverCry 00:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also noticed this problem some time ago. Perhaps that is because of the recent changes made to the template Template:Wikiproject Russia. We need to address either Ezhiki or user:killiondude who edited the template last time. GreyHood ^Talk 00:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reposted this on both of their talk pages. INeverCry 00:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This happens on some of these project templates. Somebody somewhere talked something about fixing it sometime but it never happened. What you have to do get it listed as "b-class" is include all the b-class sections (hidden text in there):

|b1 =yes |b2 =yes |b3 =yes |b4 =yes |b5 =yes |b6 =yes

If one of these is not included it defaults to a "no" and will automatically list it as c-class. At least that's how it works with WP Poland.VolunteerMarek 03:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Like this [8] (feel free to revert if you changed your mind about it being b class).VolunteerMarek 03:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'm only seeing a handfull of b-class articles on WP Russia, so this looks like quite a problem. It seems like it would be much easier to adress this in the template, rather than manually by looking through the 1000+ "c-class" articles to see which ones are really b-class. I've adjusted the few articles that I had rated b-class earlier. INeverCry 03:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If you figure out how to adjust this within the template please let me know.VolunteerMarek 04:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page and temporarily disabled the banner functionality responsible for this problem. I've also removed Marek's addition of B-checklist on Talk:Anastasiya Vertinskaya to demonstrate that the template is now behaving as INC expected (feel free to revert).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 29, 2012; 13:36 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! But looks like this functionality is useful and needs to be restored some time in the future. Perhaps this should be addressed to the makers of the base template. GreyHood ^Talk 13:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is useful, but with so many article assessed as B-class without checklists before this functionality was implemented, the new approach breaks quite a bit at this point. At any rate, since there are fewer B-class articles than there are C-class articles, it is easier to go through all the Bs and fill out their checklists than it is to go through all the Cs and figure out which ones are actually B-class. Once that's done, the functionality can easily be reactivated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 29, 2012; 14:10 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that your current solution is better. GreyHood ^Talk 14:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Re

In response to your comment I created a redirect [9]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Personally I see no problem in fresh starts.. but when with a fresh start you are getting into the old disputes.. And I don't know what other people may think of that. Perhaps you better create a redirect from User:Biophys too in order to reduce any possible future confusions once and for all. GreyHood ^Talk 16:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you do not need my advice, but here is it. If you want to enroll more people for editing your favorite wikiproject Russia, you should be more friendly and never make comments like this. I'd like to contribute, but unfortunately, two editors followed my edits and reverted them when I tried to do this last time... My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I've not intended that to be unfriendly. I just wanted everything to be clear. Because there are fine distinctions between different types of Russians and their views on different things. If you consider yourself Russian OK, I am really glad to hear that and I could accept that - self-identification is a very important thing. But your own words "Culturally Russian user" show that you have significant reservations about that. GreyHood ^Talk 17:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

hi

greetings from soviet russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.157.138 (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Donkey Votes Zhirinovsky.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Donkey Votes Zhirinovsky.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Hi, in the last 24 hours you've made 4 or more reverts to the same, or substantially similar material. Please undo the last one. You have been warned by me about 3RR before and for this reason I am about to report you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Please comment there. Malick78 (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Malick, you are again gaming the system and it this preference of editorial conflicts again reasonable editorial judgement is noted. In my reverts I've not simply re-added material, but provided new sources which clearly show why the material is relevant. It is unwise to prefer confusion and gaming to clarity and improvement of the article. GreyHood ^Talk 12:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You readded essentially the same material. That is attempting to game the system. Thank you for reverting it though, I'll comment as such on the report page.Malick78 (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm editing within the reasonable editorial paradigm. The other editors asked me for the sources - I've provided them. If the sources were asked in correct and respectful way, that is by adding "citation needed" tags, I'd simply replaced the tags with sources. But instead the whole material was outright deleted. Note that the editor Toddy1 on the talk found my addition of sources OK and helpful. GreyHood ^Talk 13:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

To help you through the difficult time!

Mootros (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You have a good sense of irony, lol GreyHood ^Talk 13:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's get rid of all this rubbish

What a pity there is not an article on the famous 2005 Rodina "Let's get rid of all this rubbish" video. I cannot find the video on Youtube any more :( --Toddy1 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• There is an article on Ru-wiki. GreyHood ^Talk 18:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Funny that Narochnitskaya and Ekho Moskvy are also among the sources there. GreyHood ^Talk 18:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video - proposal to reduce edit warring

I have made a proposal to reduce edit warring on the article on Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video. See Talk:Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video#Proposal to reduce edit warring. Are you willing to agree to this?--Toddy1 (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:RUSSIA and WP:USSR assessment

OK, no prob, sorry. I will put back the ones where you also rated Soviet, they always matched. My main concern, as I explained on the WikiProject Military History was that as good as an article might become over time, that it would never have any chance of meeting the criteria for a Good Article of an only related project, which is understandable but by the same token, makes including the article in the project almost counter productive and more than a bit darn frustrating for any potential editor.

Would it be possible to see the criteria for such assessments? I must admit at being more than a bit frustrated as some of them. For example, the "START" assessment on the article Order of the Red Banner simply makes no sense to me. Maybe if I saw your assessment criteria, I could insure future articles are more complete in the areas that are obviously lacking. I honestly cannot imagine what that might be in the case of a medal. When one has its description, history, criteria, recipients, pictures, what else is required for an article to be considered complete? Its molecular structure?
Cheers! Fdutil (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. Here are the project's assessment criteria: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Russia/Assessment#Quality_scale. Remember that people making assessments may make mistakes and that you can fix assessments, assess your own articles or ask others to do this (though of course you cannot assess articles GA or FA on your own). If you consider the article complete or almost complete (and having a proper sourcing, style etc.), then raise it's quality assessment to B or C class and consider nominating the article to GA. As for what else is required for an article to be considered complete, I can propose to add to the decoration articles short lists of most notable recipients, where possible. GreyHood ^Talk 17:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Orders and medals assessments

Hi again, thank you for your prompt response and data. You said " I can propose to add to the decoration articles short lists of most notable recipients, where possible. GreyHood Talk 17:56, 5 April", check the articles again starting at the bottom of the list (from the bottom of each article), I've been doing just that for days now. As far as rating my own articles up to B and/or C, I've been told to stop doing that. Cheers! Fdutil (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well OK if you started adding the lists, it's just that last time I checked I haven't seen such lists in some of the Russian/Soviet decoration articles. Were you told not to assess B and/or C by someone from WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals?

It would be OK to have the same quality ratings for WP:RUSSIA as there are for WPODM. But of course WP:RUSSIA should have its own importance ratings as determined in the Russian, not global context. GreyHood ^Talk 18:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video

Please could you add translations of the source titles in the citation for this article as requested in the talk page. This will count as a 'technical edit'. The reason for requesting it is Wikipedia policy on verifiable sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You wrote:

"I can't really understand what is so important to focus on making this small section in this small article "less wordy"..."

You produce a lot of good stuff. You are a great asset to English language Wikipedia. But sometimes other people can see something that you do not. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes wrong. That is why it is better to discuss changes. We focus on a few small sections at a time because it is easier for people get these right.

I think most of what you have done is right, or nearly right. We need to focus on parts that are not so right. Then the whole article will read well.

It is important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Some of the detail is like used bathwater - it is better discarded. Some of the detail is like the baby, and must be kept.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. So we need to establish what is the baby and what is the water. GreyHood ^Talk 14:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggest that you use the same method that I am using at Talk:Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video#Proposed edit to paragraphs 1 - 3 of the Troika section and Talk:Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video#Proposed edit to other comparisons to deal with the dispute about the edits at [10].--Toddy1 (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, when you get time, please propose any changes to Troika paras 1-3 and Troika para 4.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Rating Order of the Red Banner as C

Hi again, I just read through the Quality Scale and it raises even more questions on my part, especially since you just rated the article as a mere C:

• The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. Such as?
• The article should have references to reliable sources They are there, you don't get more reliable than the actual decrees
• ...but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study It is a detailed study in itself!
• Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues. Such as??

I honestly don't agree with this low assessment, it is a medal... Not a political leader, not a marking event in a nation's history, it is a medal. I'm sorry, I don't know the name of the lady who dyed the ribbon or of the guy who dug the ore from the mine to smelt the sucker, nor did I find the exact chemical composition of the suspension ring... What possible information could be added? I'm not angry, I'm completly befuddled!! And more than a little frustrated. Do you agree that anybody assessing an article should include the reasons for his conclusion in the talk page? IMHO, from what I've seen so far, assessments (ratings) are way too harsh! (For no reason!) These aren't Masters' dissertations! Have you seen the WikiPrijectODM board? Out of 2,646 articles, 2 are A and 2 are GA... That is absolute insanity! One of the 2 GA is Hero of the Russian Federation, I've read it, heck, I upgraded it, it has NOTHING more than my latest articles, really, NOTHING, even WPRussia rated it a GA. Was it a domino effect after the first GA? I've read the "More detailed criteria" in all classes, these assessments are too harsh, and honestly, frustrating enough to push editors to quit altogether, especially when no explanation is left on the talk page, specific explanations. There are GAs out there, many of them, many Bs but very few Cs and I did NOT leave stubs, but it seems nobody will stick his or her neck out for some weird reason.

Fdutil (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Have a look at this one, you rated it START... Medal "For Valiant Labour in the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945" If this is only worth a mere START rating, then I've just typed my very last words on Wikipedia... Fdutil (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I would most certainly rate the Order of the Red Banner article as B, but there are two issues: less then 10 sources and the lead consisting of one short phrase not providing any insight how this order differs from other Soviet orders. Well, you are a specialist in the topic, perhaps you would say that the sourcing is enough - that's OK. But the lead is most certainly a problem - check WP:LEAD please: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. Even the Hero of the Russian Federation has a more descriptive lead, though again consisting of just one line - I think that this article is a GA only because it was made GA as long ago as 2006‎, when the standards were less stringent. GreyHood ^Talk 21:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've re-assessed Medal "For Valiant Labour in the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945" as C, a more descriptive lead would give it B in my view.

Also, please remember that when assessing I and other people make mistakes. Usually I'm more concerned with placing the WP tag and choosing appropriate task forces rather than with contemplating over quality and importance parameters for long. So often when I have to choose between quality parameters and the choice is not obvious, I just place the minimal rank an article deserves, but that does not mean that the article does not deserve higher ranks. GreyHood ^Talk 21:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh and please, do not take it as seriously: your work on Wiki is very much appreciated. I have no problem with you raising the WP:RUSSIA assessment of most of your articles to B if you follow my recomendations named above. GreyHood ^Talk 21:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Greyhood. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Medals' articles ratings - Part Deux

Let me explain a bit about myself, I've been a military historian and very seriously into phaleristics for over 30 years, my personal collection holds over 1,200 items and I'm a senior moderator on the subject in more than one international society on the subject. This list here List of orders, decorations, and medals of the Russian Federation, there's over 10 years of my research (in 4 different languages) that went into this list. Even the Russians use my data! My friends told me I was nuts to slap everything on Wiki and that I should write a series of books, they still think I'm nuts for simply giving away so much research. After creating darn near every single article on Russian Federation state awards, I was quite surprised to see Soviet awards had been so thoroughly bypassed and set out to rectify the situation. Check out Orders, decorations, and medals of the Soviet Union, as I create the various articles, I also update this list adding all references, quite the task. It's now more complete than the Russian article! I even photograph my own awards to complement articles where the available ones aren't up to par.

My thanks to date? START and C ratings... I'm sorry, I don't think so. The nitpicking must stop, or I will. I checked about the Lead in section you mentioned, a medal doesn't nor can it have an extended lead in section as described, how can you put a thing like that into context? A simple description that won't cost you your first 2 of 4 paragraphs is the only way to go. Again, sorry, but this is nitpicking at its finest. What is so GD taboo about a GA rating on this bloody thing?!?

You said the Hero of the Russian Federation article must've been rated years ago to get its supposedly now undeserved GA rating, well great! You've just shot down 1/2 of all WikiProjectODM GA rated articles, that only leaves the one out of the 2,646. Does this make any sense to you? Honestly? 2 GAs out of 2,646? Are editors so lame? So lazy? So carefree? Do they so lack knowledge in their own field of expertise as to merit these written slaps in the face? That's exactly how I take these, and I cannot believe I'm the only person feeling this way. You guys have to stop slapping anything on, especially the lowest possible rating one can give if a bloody comma is out of place.

Please don't think I'm singling you out here, I'm not. There seems to be this quite unhealthy aura of a university teacher's lounge in the air around here. I've been told (by others) some work wasn't adequately referenced, what can one do when the entire subject is contained on a single 80 year old official decree?!? If you're wondering why I'm getting a bit irritated, read this little exchange I had with one of your colleagues [[11]]. I know perfectly well what he wanted me to add to the article, I know military history, but it was biased and unreferenced and he used his position to pressure a change versus a higher rating!?! I was NOT impressed. If he wants it in, he can amend the article himself, notice he didn't do that did he?

Now... I've read, read again and re read the Quality scale, 90%+ of the articles easily meet the GA standard. Why is this such a taboo thing to do? I have well over 150 references on the subject, NONE, not a single reference available anywhere in the World today contains the data each article contains on a particular item in these articles. Matter of fact, last month I caught a plagiarist in the US selling posters and a book from these articles (from MY research), so I guess they must be OK.

GA = Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. Well these are above the data one would find in ANY encyclopedia (in any language!) on the subject, I dare anybody in Wiki to prove me wrong. If a shorter "lead in" due to the nature of the article kicks it from GA to C... Its pretty sad. Upgrade them myself to B?? -SIGH- That's like you saying, "do want you want, who cares..."

I hope you'll share this rant of mine with as many of your fellow assessors as possible. This place needs to be shaken up... It's really getting stale, sorry, but there you have it. I'm going to take a break now... I wanted to finish all Soviet ODMs and then do all Russian Federation ministerial awards also but this seriously took the wind right out of my sails. And like I said, it isn't you, it's the general aura about ratings here, quite unhealthy for Wiki IMHO. You can't afford to discourage or piss off your editors, they're your life blood, and these ratings are basically their only "slap on the back" (sorry, but barn stars don't cut it). Cheers! Fdutil (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I really didn't want to disturb you. For me all this assessment stuff is of little importance compared to having more knowledgeable and productive contributors in the area - and you definitely are the best editor in the field of Russian decorations which Wikipedia ever had. I repeat, that for me when I do assessing the main goals are to place the appropriate project template and to choose the appropriate task forces. The quality ranks are secondary task for me (until I actually start editing the articles, not only assessing), and I am happy to leave them to other editors to decide. I'll be glad if most your articles are reassessed to B class (whoever does the reassessments) and if you nominate as much your articles to GA (via the existing procedures) as you want. Make me know about such nominations and I'll try to support them

And a bit later I'll pass through your articles again and fix assessments GreyHood ^Talk 18:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You didn't disturb me, don't take it personally please... The overall rating system seems misused (IMHO), and I mean in most other projects also, like I said, there seems to be an unwritten code of start low, stay low. BTW, how does one nominate an article for GA? Then A? I'm really fired up to stir up some dust around here. (inserts smiling emoticon here) Fdutil (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations (the procedure is simple: select a topic on that GA nominations page - I think that for decorations, just as for heraldry, that should be "History" - and place {{subst:GAN|subtopic=History}} at the top of the nominated article's talk page). You may also read Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles. GreyHood ^Talk 20:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. When you recently edited List of cultural icons of Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State symbols (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio and editing style

Hello, please do not copy copyright material so slavishly in future. Here, you wrote "Putin brought together 13 countries at a November 2011 conference endorsed by World Wide Fund for Nature, and raised over $330 million in funds to preserve the the [sic] endangered species." which, I'm sure you know, is almost the same as the original: "Not only did he bring together 13 countries at a November conference endorsed by WWF last year, but he also raised over $330 million in funds to preserve the soon to be extinct species." Also, please, don't make so many edits in different sections at one time - it makes it impossible to revert your edits if there's a problem (I disagreed with three parts of your edit). Many thanks.Malick78 (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

For me the changes in wording are significant enough. You could easily fixed it yourself as a native speaker instead of removal - this is just one sentence (already modified in many parts), that would be more constructive and friendly. GreyHood ^Talk 21:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It was not a "significant" change. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the relevant WP page on copyvio so that you know what is expected of a WP editor. I also hope you will learn from your mistake and not complain about others' behaviour when you're caught. You are in the wrong, and why should others waste their time when you could have got it right first time? FYI, btw, I think the material was inaccurate anyway: did he really "bring together" the nations? In what way? Did he "raise the funds"? I think not. It's a silly article on an animal in a "top ten" style, not serious journalism to be citing. Either way, put more effort in to rewriting info and please don't abuse journalist's work. Thanks.Malick78 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Your answer just shows again that you do not like what was added in the first place, not so much how it was added. GreyHood ^Talk 22:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

As for the silly article in a "top ten" style - well, this is Time magazine, isn't it? They are respectable and they are famous exactly for such "10 top" or "100 top" things - see Time 100. GreyHood ^Talk 22:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Something You Can Do with Your Finger

Not sure what you have on your watchlist.... So I let you know I posted a message here you should see since you created what the message is about. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

PS you can click on your computer mouse with your finger I had presumed... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Outing of members

Please do not out me on Wikipedia, as you did in Talk:Vladimir Putin. It is not anyone's business what nationality I am. Please remove the comments that out me.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry very much, I've removed the comment. The point of that comment was only to tell that nationality/geolocation isn't always what it seems from the positions editors take on some matters. I did not want to out you and in fact I could not, since actually I do not know where you are located and what is your nationality. I just made an obvious supposition based on the images on your userpage. In fact, that was a supposition only about geolocation, which you could have changed since and which anyway doesn't exactly tell your nationality. I suppose that if you don't want people making guesses about your whereabouts, you better exclude from your pages what might seem as references to your whereabouts. GreyHood ^Talk 00:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I am glad that you understand.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop Abusing Wikipedia

See:Below http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&diff=prev&oldid=487380845 Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wrathofjames (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding File:Rich cannot into Wikipedia?.jpg

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Whatever your intentions, I showed multiple people the image and everyone said it was a personal attack against either RF or Elen. You can and will be blocked for uploading images that attack other users. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The image has been featured on Jimbo's talk and no one found problem with it there. A number of other people found it funny, including RF. Elen found one my previous work funny. Anyway, this image should be dealt with on Commons. GreyHood ^Talk 08:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to delete nonsense from articles...

Your edit [12] was a bit of an own goal. You said the the purpose of the edit was to:

Personal wealth: sorry no, the yellow press style rumours spread by known Putin opponents, with no clear connection to Putin personally can't be preferred over his known belongings)

But you left all the nonsense in the text!

When the Comrade M made his edit, I checked his/her claimed source and added what the source really says as the caption.[13].

If you are going to do these edits, please could you do them more carefully. Given that 2 editors insisted on the photo of the building site in preference to the nice photo of him and Bush with his old car, I could not just revert again (I did it once). But the virtue of a caption that accurately captures Comrade M's source, was that it suggested that it was all nonsense.

Please either restore the photo with its caption, or do a proper job of correcting the nonsense in the text.

Please also do some corrections on the article on the building site that the picture was of.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. It is widely known that Putin already has a number of residences for personal use. Singling this one out is ridiculous - except for the name which locals gave to it there seems to be nothing particularly notable about this story, and the fact that it was and was allegedly Putin's residence doesn't help either. GreyHood ^Talk 20:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've simply removed it. The mansion is sold, and there seems to be no other relation to the subject but it's local name and some dubious claims. GreyHood ^Talk 20:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Please can you contribute to Talk:Vladimir Putin#Buildings near the Black Sea whose purpose is unknown.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent Changes

This edit doesn't contain sensationalism, Im not sure if NPOV even applies here, because there was a primary source reporting these things. The reliability of the source might be worth mentioning to provide context- but I dont see how we can logically omit many of these related sourced statements and maintain a good article on Vladmir Putin. Im not sure if these recent edits are constructive. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Putin&diff=prev&oldid=491168819 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Putin&diff=prev&oldid=491061433 Wrathofjames (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that when first they claim the mansion cost is a round figure of $1 billion but then becomes known it is sold for more reasonable $350 mln, the initial claim is sensationalism. And when we have one source and $1 billion figure in the article and then another source with $350 mln, it is a bit of contradiction. And I do not think that a good article on Vladmir Putin should contain detailed descriptions of dubious claims. A brief mention is enough. The rest may be read at the linked article. GreyHood ^Talk 18:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have copied this to Talk:Vladimir Putin#Buildings near the Black Sea whose purpose is unknown. This issue needs discussing on the articles talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thx. GreyHood ^Talk 18:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of difficult language

Greyhood - please remember that a contributor to the talk page for the article on Putin has only limited English and often misunderstands you. If you are going to use phrase like "Yellow Press", it might be better to wikilink it so that our comrade can understand it.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• 5. dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system. - interesting that this is a part of yellow journalism definition. GreyHood ^Talk 20:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

New infobox

I designed a Russian writer infobox working off of your explorers infobox. I've added it to the List of Russian-language writers. Take a look. INeverCry 23:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks great! I've used some color-coding in other infoboxes. If you could determine what we could color-code here and how, than we can use color-coding for the writers too. GreyHood ^Talk 01:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think color coding would work. Most of these writers wrote in more than one genre, and a good number of them wrote in more than one period, then you have emigres... It would be nearly impossible to color code writers like Chekhov, Tolstoy, Gorky, Mayakovsky, Solzhenitsyn, Bunin, Bulgakov, etc... INeverCry 02:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Pics

I don't know if you noticed, but images on commons using the PD-Russia tag, such as File:Alexander Fadeev.jpg are being deleted. There are currently 400+ of these Russian pics used in several thousand articles. I can easily replace all the writer images we lose here on en.wiki; as for the rest, I don't know... INeverCry 02:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try adjust licensing on commons where the problem is just incorrect licensing, or upload new free pictures using the names of deleted ones.. GreyHood ^Talk 13:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There are no other licenses that fit, as ru-2008 has very strict guidelines. There are no free versions either, as these are Soviet people who died too recently to be free. The only thing I can do is upload fair-use images here, but I can only do that for en.wiki. BTW, I'm expanding the list of Russian writers on Swedish wiki at the moment. INeverCry 18:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Uzor Painting by Vladimir Putin.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Uzor Painting by Vladimir Putin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have questions, please post them here.
• I will automatically remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please ask an admin to turn it off here.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the template because the image was only temporarily deleted from the article on Putin. The text that goes with the painting suggests that it should go with several articles. Please would you consider putting the image into them.

If you feel that on balance I am wrong, then please re-insert the template.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. For now I've utilised the picture here: 2009_Russia–Ukraine_gas_dispute#Background. GreyHood ^Talk 17:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video

Carabinieri (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Pumpernickel image

You are a far more experienced editor than I, so what could have possibly motivated you to upload that image? It was deleted by another editor, for good reason.--Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm, the image illustrated "an incorrect folk etymology" which is discussed in the article in the last para. Incorrect folk etymologies often tend to be non-serious and ridiculous, and so should be the images illustrating them. GreyHood ^Talk 09:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Geography taskforce pic, etc

I tagged a Russian place article a minute ago, and I noticed that the physgeo parameter shows a red 25px, as the original image has been deleted on Commons. I don't know if you'd noticed this.

PS. I've done a couple Russian articles on Simple Wiki, including Isaac Levitan. Evermore and I are still going strong over here. INeverCry 19:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, we need another picture or a a new title of the old one. I'll see about that. Thank you! Simple Wiki is a nice place, makes sense to develop it. GreyHood ^Talk 19:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Simple Wiki coverage of Russia is in the beginning stages. The first thing I saw there was the List of Russians, which is way to red. I'll probably do an article a week or so. There's so much to do here, though... INeverCry 19:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Putin

You keep saying: "During his first presidency, the Russian economy grew for nine straight years", yet Putin was president for 8.5 years. Can you see why the word "nine" is nonsensical? Malick78 (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

8.5 is rounded to 9 ;) And the economy grew during the nine calendar years when he was President (2000 to 2008) and fell in 2009. If the timing is given more specifically, I see no problem with that, the main point that the economy saw the long period of growth after the fall in 1990s. GreyHood ^Talk 21:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Malick, I think you are being silly about this. If United Russia can get 123% of the votes during elections, then what's wrong with getting the economy to grow for nine straight years during an eight-year long presidency? It's only logical!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 7, 2012; 23:18 (UTC)

The 147% figure is typically cited, it has become a meme ;) GreyHood ^Talk 23:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I think you are on the verge of starting a new one!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 8, 2012; 00:13 (UTC)

Annoying people

Did you see that annoying user User:Wrathofjames has been exposed as a sockpuppet and banned. I did guess that he/she was a sockpuppet - but I thought he/she was a sockpuppet of the only person who agreed with him/her. Maybe that person will get banned as a sockpuppet too. :) --Toddy1 (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. User:Wrathofjames was not really annoying for me - but most certainly the actions and judgments of that user were inadequate. Such users often are got banned and often turn out to be sockpuppeters. GreyHood ^Talk 10:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just checking

Are you OK? Haven't seen you editing in a while.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 19, 2012; 15:31 (UTC)

Yes, I'm mostly OK, thank you for your care But, on one hand, I'm very busy in real life, and on the other hand, early summer (especially this summer for me) is not the best time for editing. However I hope that I'll return to active editing very soon. There are some projects which need to be completed, such as the assessment of WP:RUSSIA articles with task force parameters (just about 2000 items in the Category:WikiProject_Russia_articles_with_no_associated_task_force). GreyHood ^Talk 10:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear everything is fine. I too hope to see you actively editing sooner rather than later :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 20, 2012; 12:12 (UTC)

A cup of kvas for you!

Hope to see you back here soon. INeverCry 22:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I have an unexpectedly large amount of real life work this summer (instead of usual vacation), plus some urgent academic tasks. This is temporary, but may last for few weeks more. GreyHood ^Talk 12:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

nonsense on a Russian page

This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_people This section: Circumnavigators Error: someone has added 'Spongebob Squarepants' I don't want to get involved in learning how to fix errors, but am happy to report them and saw that you are connected with the group that looks after these pages. Hope you can deal with it.

Thanks. Joolzzt (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've removed it. BTW, Greyhood, we should really think of splitting this article into two smaller parts. I would suggest having:

part 1- political, military, religious, sciences (inventors, explorers, etc)

and

part 2- art, literature, performing arts (actors, dancers, etc), sports

The new titles could be as simple as part 1 and part 2, or whatever is thought to be best. I know it's a tough decision to make, but the size and corresponding load time are most likely a bit daunting for many viewers. INeverCry 18:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like part 1 would be sections 1 thru 5 and part 2 would be from section 6 on. INeverCry 18:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood, I've been talking to Ezhiki about this: User talk:Ezhiki#List of Russian people. He's suggested finding a way to cut some size off the list rather than splitting it, which would be my preference as well. INeverCry 20:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that. We should have topical lists, with only some most important individuals in the main list. Removing some individuals that are already on the topical lists is the best solution. I still have no time for editing until Autumn, so I hope you or Ezhiki would take the task. Perhaps it would be even better if someone else than me cuts the size of the list - for me it would be difficult ;) GreyHood ^Talk 11:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. BTW, I've put up a new Russian writer article for DYK: Mark Kharitonov. I'll probably do a few more for other Russian literary prize winners like Kharitonov. I've also started adding taskforces to the WP:RU articles I assess. It would've slowed me down a bit back when there was a big backlog, but it's pretty easy now that I keep the assessments up to date. I'm not going to touch the no taskforce category, though, as I don't want to make it tougher for you to get to 100,000 edits. I've got an award ready for that. ;) INeverCry 17:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I went through the politicians, and oh boy, it's not an easy task indeed! I managed to cut about 9K from that section alone, but would appreciate one of you double-checking to make sure I did not accidentally remove someone of top importance. I'm planning to go through other sections in a similar manner in the next several days.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2012; 17:21 (UTC)

I wouldn't cut off so many monarchs (especially Emperors) and Muravyov-Amursky ;) Otherwise agree with your cut. GreyHood ^Talk 12:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to restore any of those I cut. I'm trying to leave only crème de la crème in the list (along with Putin :)), but like you said, it's not easy to draw a line.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 17, 2012; 13:33 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vladimir Putin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ESPO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Putin

Hello, please don't edit war on this article. It was stable all summer and your recent edits have been reverted by two editors, suggesting there is little consensus for your changes. Use the talk page and try to reach agreement with others, otherwise you may end up being reported. Thank you.Malick78 (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've explained my actions on talk, and my primary point about the lead was supported by another editor. Please show some good faith and some attempts at actually improving the article (the "stable" version was too obviously flawed, starting from the tag above and continuing with the misinformation which you continuously re-inserted), rather than doing mass reverting and threating with reporting. GreyHood ^Talk 20:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, perhaps you could explain this to me here, if not on the talk page? Here, you removed "According to the Daily Mail, their photographs have never been published by the Russian media, and no family portrait has ever been issued." - yet I showed you that the pictures you found released to the press of his "family" with the children's backs to camera a) weren't titled "Putin's family" (so it was OR to claim so), and b) were not portraits (portraits show faces, not the backs of heads). How are the backs of children's heads "a portrait"? And how do we know they are his children without it even being claimed in a caption (there was no caption at all)? Please explain, I really cannot fathom how you can seriously hold your opinion that it's a portrait. Spasibo. Malick78 (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

One photo presented was (and still is in the archive of kremlin.ru) in the album called "В домашнем кругу" (literally: "In the home circle", which in Russian means in the family circle) [14] and there could be no double understanding of what it means. Unfortunately in 2008 they put this album into archive. Media clearly refer to the photographs as photographs of Putin's daughters [15] (this image we discussed too) Multiple images of his family exist in the Russian media, including Runet. The photos and family portraits with daughters exist, including some with faces shown, though at a relatively young age.[16] [17] Stop ignoring this, it is ridiculous. GreyHood ^Talk 23:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're being incredibly disingenuous here. Your second link here says in the first para: "Sunday Times пишет, что негласный запрет российского премьер-министра Владимира Путина публиковать какую либо информацию о своей семье был недавно нарушен одним из российских информационных сайтов опубликовал фотографии его дочерей Марии и Екатерины." The official policy is no photos. From what you've shown, however, sure, some photos have leaked - but the general rule still is that it's not official policy to publish them and it is actually forbidden (if a press outlet wants cooperation in the future from the Kremlin, or doesn't want to be raided). What still is obvious is that "no portrait has ever been issued" - the official photos aren't portraits, and any photos with the girls' faces are from before he became president or were leaked. So, if we want to reflect this fact our article should say: "Putin has unofficially banned the publication of photos of his family and no official portrait has even been published, however in recent years the ban has been broken by a few internet sites which have published old photos that purport to show his daughters". Is that ok? Do you prefer that version to the current one? Malick78 (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have shown that you are wrong. Face it. The photos/portraits exist.

The fact that he conceals his family is a different issue. Your proposed wording is flawed, since:

1) "a few internet sites" which recently published old photos of daughters (and continue to publish) include Putin's official sites.

2) the "unofficial ban" is enforced by the fact that no one has been able to make an unsanctioned photo of Putin's daughters following the period after the early 2000s. The photos made prior to that period seem to have been published on Putin's sites and in other media quite freely throughout the entire decade of 2000s and early 2010s, not just "in recent years".

3) there is no tradition in Russia to publish official portraits of presidential families (there is no even tradition to publish official photos of the first ladies). So no reason to expect publishing of the "official portrait" of the family in the first place.

You should admit that your knowledge of the subject is flawed and stop stubbornly disrupt the work of people who are actually more knowledgeable in the subject.

As far as I remember there should already be the line in the article about "security reasons" etc. We may be happy with that line, or could expand it with something like Few photos of Putin's family show his daughters in child age or in their teens, but no confirmed images of them in adulthood are available.

GreyHood ^Talk 13:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your view that because there's "no tradition of publishing official portraits" is OR and absurd. There's no tradition of having 26 villas and palaces, and Rolexes, and multiple yachts, but Putin does it. He does what he wants. It's the way of dictator's. He's split with his wife and doesn't want people to know, so he doesn't have his photo taken with her. He protects his daughters' privacy by letting the media know they'll be punished if they go too far. Either way, the essentials of the Mail quote are true - no photos (with faces) are released of his family, none are published by the "media" (it's debatable whether the runet counts. I think the "media" here means mainstream media outlets, so the Mail is right), and there's been no official portrait. That would never happen in a democratic country, btw ;) Malick78 (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "[[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Vladimir Putin and related articles|Vladimir Putin and related articles]]". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 17:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Last warning

Don't add false information to Wikipedia anymore. Don't touch subjects you have no clue about [18] Colchicum (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Explain, please, why you think the addition was incorrect? 84.52.64.100 (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic?

Hi Greyhood, could you take a look at this edits? [19], [20]. I think everyone agrees that the Eastern Front was of prime importance and the USSR took the vast majority of the casualties. Tobby72 (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I need your opinion

Hello. What do you think - should links to List of Russian inventions and Timeline of Russian inventions and technology records (or Timeline of Russian inventions, depending on page) be added to some pages about Russian inventions? 85.113.197.170 (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I my opinion, these links should be present in at least articles about historical Russian inventions and more specific articles such as Fyodorov Avtomat and Russky Vityaz. Unfortunatelly, some people get epileptic seizures when us Russians defend our interests (latent Russophobia) so if you agree I'll need a back up from an admin as well. 85.113.197.170 (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Both Fyodorov Avtomat and Russky Vityaz articles already link to "Russian inventions" in their "Category" section, what's the point of adding more redundant links to the same page??? Also, you can add any additional information yourself, and if you do it properly and with valid reasons (which you should always mention in "Edit summary" box or an article's "Talk" page), nobody will revert your edits, and if they will - you should discuss such things on the article's "Talk" page (the ONLY right place for such discussions), instead of begging another editor to do so for you ;-)98.113.47.15 (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Greyhood is the primary contributor to the Timeline of the Russian inventions article so I value his opinion as a more experienced editor. 2. Discussing a 'See also' link on every Talk page is simply not feasable [are you that desperate for self-affirmation?]. P.S.: I forgot that Russky Vityaz was only the first four-engine airplane (hardly an invention) - Ilya Muromets was the plane on which the first bomber and airliner were based on (it's 85.113.197.170). 109.195.112.185 (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays!
	I haven't seen you around for a while, but I hope that'll change in 2013. Happy Holidays and best wishes for the New Year! INeverCry 20:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Belated thanks! GreyHood ^Talk 19:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a name I didn't expect to see on my watchlist! It's good to see you again! INeverCry 20:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! Good to know you are still here, and wow, you are an admin now! GreyHood ^Talk 21:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ymblanter is an admin here too now. We couldn't let Ezhiki have all the fun. INeverCry 21:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Always good to see you! Hope you are not just stopping by and are planning to stay around for a while. Drink some tea at least :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 6, 2013; 13:20 (UTC)

Thanks! Real life business prohibits me from spending lots of time here, but I'll try to poke in from time to time and perhaps finish few of old projects. GreyHood ^Talk 23:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

List of Soviet people listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Soviet people. Since you had some involvement with the List of Soviet people redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ibicdlcod (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Where you of at?

Hey Greyhood, where you of at druzhba? The encyclopaedia is of needing you!!! Russavia (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm of here right now, but not sure how long I'll stay. Looks like your stay here is not very stable as well %) GreyHood ^Talk 19:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)