User talk:Ezhiki

File:Crystal 128 package utilities.png	Toolbox	Autoblock finder Countitis facilitatis (defunct) Edit summary usage stats Image usage (defunct) List of blocked IPs & usernames Prefix Index Unwatched pages	Yo? Yo!
	Reference	Administrators' how-to guide Administrators' reading list Current surveys Dealing with vandalism Manual of style Russian administrative terminology worksheet (do not use!) Policies and guidelines Vandalism in progress

---

Archived talk: 2004 2005 2006

---

Viktor Khristenko

I saw you tend to edit Russia-related articles. If you are familiar with Viktor Khristenko, a former Prime Minister of Russia, please do your best to expand the article or add references to uncited content. Thanks, DRK 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Russia

Something must be done to reduce the size of the article. Do you find nice the pictures with peasants? As if Russia is a country of peasants.--РКП 18:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Peasants" are a part of Russia's history; there is nothing wrong with that. The picture is more than appropriate in the history section—Russia was primarily an agricultural country; "a country of peasants" if you wish. Besides, removing the image would do almost nothing to reduce its size.

While I do agree that the article could be shortened, perhaps considerably, I absolutely do not condone the way you did it. Cutting pieces out and shoveling them to loosely-related locations is not the way to go. Trimming such a high-profile article requires a well-thought plan, and obtaining a second opinion from other interested parties before making edits wouldn't have hurt either. What's the rush, anyway?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ëzhiki, apparently things can change very rapidly here in Wikipedia. You are free to edit, free to delete, free to add new lines. Let's see how it is in reality. Things don't change so rapidly. So? You're free to make it more flexible, to cut it. --РКП 18:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because things can change very rapidly doesn't always mean one should be changing them as fast as one can. If you rapidly improve something, no one will be against it. What you did, however, can hardly be classified as an improvement, although I am sure you had best intentions at heart. Please listen to what others have to say; all of the points raised on your talk page are very valid.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Up to now, you're the only one who isn't subjective on this matter. The rest wants to keep huge parts of trash. It's not good for Russia--РКП 18:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion that this user is a seasoned troll. Right now he is contributing nothing, only making nuisance with frivolous tags and arbitrary splitting of articles. `'mikka (t) 19:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

rvv (via UR-100)

Yes, I did it manually. I don't know how to revert articles. I'd like to know how. --jno 09:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jno, in order to revert to one of the previous versions, go to article's "history" (a tab next to the "edit this page" tab). I trust you know how to use this screen to see the diffs between versions (if not, let me know). Click on the date/time link of the version you want to revert to, then press "edit this page". You'll be presented with a normal edit screen, except there will be a pink warning at the top reminding you that the version you are about to edit is not current. Type "reverting vandalism" or something of that nature into the "edit summary" box and save the page. Voilà! Let me know if anything is still unclear, or see Help:Reverting for more detailed instructions. The only difference between admins and non-admins is that admins can revert to the previous version with one click, instead of going through multiple steps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's really goofy to not find such a facility - I use history feature intensively... --jno 14:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Kuban categories

Could you please comment on this? Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If "Shlisselburg", then "Kyonigsberg"?

Well, if the Russian town Schlüsselburg (Шлиссельбург) is in English "Shlisselburg", will then the 'new-old' name of Kaliningrad possibly be, not Königsberg (Кёнигсберг) but "Kyonigsberg"..?

Sincerely.

--PKo 16:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The original name of Kaliningrad did not come into English from Russian, as it was the case with Shlisselburg. That fact is easily verified by running a check against major English-language encyclopedias.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So, no logic. What a pity...

Sincerely,

--PKo 17:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing to add except to refer you to the naming policy for the umpteenth time. How can you not see the logic of that policy???—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the German name Schlüsselburg it is not written in Russian Схлиссельбург, "Shlisselburg", but Шлиссельбург, "Šlisselburg".

Sincerely,

--PKo 17:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

On that, please re-read WP:RUS. You might also find BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian of interest. The bottom line is that we generally do not use romanization systems that utilize diacritics. Any more questions?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In English You can well use letter š, look at e.g. Škoda Auto.

Furthermore, I still can't understand, that You write "Shlisselburg", although Russian czar Peter I the Great gave expressly German name Schlüsselburg to the town. If Кёнигсберг would be Königsberg, then of course Шлиссельбург is Schlüsselburg like Петергоф is Peterhof! Please, be logical.

Sincerely,

--PKo 18:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

PKo, "Škoda" is a Czech name, not Russian. Czech language utilizes Latin alphabet, not Cyrillic, so there is no need to romanize it. Even with Cyrillic, romanization rules differ—compare, for example, how romanization of Russian is different from, say, romanization of Ukrainian.

As for your second question, would you please finally read the policy? "Use English" means that one is supposed to use the name that is most common in the modern English language. The variant "Schlüsselburg" is used in modern English, but it's not nearly as common as "Shlisselburg", which is why the latter is the title of the article, and the former is mentioned in the article's body. With "Peterhof", it's the other way around, but it's all for the same reason.

Finally, just to make sure you understand, I am not the person who developed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English); I merely uphold this policy as any other admin would. If you dislike this policy to the point you think it should be changed, I suggest you stop bombarding me with numerous variations of the same question and move on to Wikipedia:How to create policy, or at least to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), where your questions will be answered by other people, who, being more passionate about this topic, may be able to provide you with a more satisfactory answer regarding the policy logic or lack thereof than yours truly.

Regards,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, that "Škoda" is a Czech name and Czech language utilizes Latin alphabet. So, You know the latin letter š in English. Why You then write "Shlisselburg", but not "Šlisselburg"? In Russian it is not Схлиссельбург, but Шлиссельбург.

Sincerely,

--PKo 14:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it's Russian, not Czech. Because the policy governing romanization of Russian (WP:RUS) is based on BGN/PCGN system, which specifically targets speakers of English, and not on scientific transliteration/ISO 9, which utilize diacritics that is confusing to many Anglophones. You know that ISO 9 is not the only transliteration system out there, don't you? We had to select one of those available, and BGN/PCGN was judged by the community to be the best fit.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So, the Russian letter "ш" is in English "sh". What is then two Russian letters (combined) "сх" in English? Perhaps no "skh", because it comes from Russian "скх"..;)

Sincerely,

--PKo 16:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

PKo, it's a pity that you don't bother to read materials at the links I provided, because if you took time just once to read through them, you wouldn't have to ask me all these unnecessary questions. It's all there, really.

To answer your question anyway—per WP:RUS/BGN/PCGN, "ш"="sh", "х"="kh", "сх"="skh", and "скх"="skkh". "H/h" is never used by itself. See, no ambiguity. For those rare cases where ambiguity exists (such as "ц" vs "тс"), BGN/PCGN provides the interpunct character, but usually it's not a problem even without it as no meaning is lost.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Saimaa Canal

There is another transliteration dispute where your comments are welcome. See this, for instance. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Both wrong. Romanization of Russian is governed by the guideline in the Wikipedia space (i.e., Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian), not by the article is the Main namespace (i.e., Romanization of Russian). I made the correction accordingly. Thanks once again for bringing this to my attention!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that both of you are ignoring the conventional name for the island, which should according to WP:RUS override any other version. The conventional name is what was already there. -Yupik 17:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yupik, by "conventional name" do you mean the name "that's commonly used in English" (as per WP:ENGLISH)? Because, if that's the case, you are incorrect. "Malyj Vysotskij" is not an English name, it's merely one of possible transliterations of a geographic name (namely, GOST 16876-71); one that's used by Russians and, consequently, by Finns—hence you get the impression the name is conventional. We don't use that particular system in Wikipedia; modified BGN/PCGN romanization (WP:RUS) is used instead, especially when it comes to geographic names, because otherwise, using your logic, every single Russian location transliterated via GOST would become a "conventional English name". "Conventional" names include "Moscow" and "Saint Petersburg", which are included in virtually every English dictionary, but not "Malyj Vysotskij", which is virtually unknown outside the area of the canal.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the name that is commonly used by HAM operators around the world and the one that has appeared in various treaties. I couldn't find any reference to it in EU documents unfortunately. Slightly OT, but why has Wikipedia decided to deviate from the transliteration that is taught in universities and used in libraries? I'm sure there are plenty more mismatched placenames because of it. -Юит или Катя 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Катя, since this is English Wikipedia, the transliteration system that specifically targeted English-speakers was the most logical choice. BGN/PCGN conventions are used by governments of both the United States and the United Kingdom.

As for HAM operators—again, there are HAM operators in quite a few Russian settlements, and all those operators probably use GOST. That doesn't automatically make those GOST-transliterated names "conventional in English". Pretty much the same goes for the EU conventions—the fact that you can't find it there just confirms that the location is quite obscure and doesn't really have a conventional English name. As for the treaties, am I correct that they would have been signed by Russia and Finland—countries in none of which English is an official language? I don't know about Finland, but Russia uses GOST in its English-language treaties—the whole purpose of GOST is to provide means to render Russian names in Latin script, and international treaties certainly qualify.

In conclusion, if the topic of transliterating Russian really interests you that much, I invite you to participate in WP:CYR policy thinktank discussions. WP:CYR's goal is to establish a set of rules that would govern romanization of all languages that use Cyrillics. Once it's adopted, it will replace WP:RUS and a handful of similar existing policies. It's been awfully quiet there for a while now, but if you come up with fresh ideas, comments, or just let your point of view known, there is a good chance you'll be heard by more people than just me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies and I will try and participate in WP:CYR when I have time. -Yupik 19:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Armenia

Please visit the Talk: Armenia and Talk: Armenians pages http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenia&action=edit&section=3 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenians&action=edit&section=36 please voice your view on the current discussion, there is a small minority that are promoting and point of view that Armenia is geographically in Europe and Armenians are a European people. It is best to serve the factual truth and your support is desperately needed.

Taichung City

I am new on WikiProject Cities. I have added considerable content to the first city I am working on, which happens to be the city of my residence, Taichung City. Would you mind taking a few minutes to look it over and leave comments on how you think I can make it better to bring it up to WikiProject Cities standards in a section of the discussion page for the city’s article page that I have set up.

Thank you. Ludahai 03:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ushayka River

Thank you for copyedit of my ugly article, now you know why usually I don't write articles here :) Sorry for inconviniences and thank you for your help! MaxiMaxiMax 13:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It was a little rough, but a decent start nevertheless. Maybe if you were actually writing here, you'd start getting better and better, but I guess we already tried mutually recruiting one another for "our" language projects without much success :)) Anyway, it was no inconvenience whatsoever. The only thing is if you are going to write Russia-related articles again, could you, please, announce them here (I already added Ushayka)? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, how did you manage to find this article just after its's creation? Do you look after Russia-stub articles category changes or there was another way? MaxiMaxiMax 05:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nikolay

Hi Ezhiki,

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I was, however, referring to WP:MOSDAB. I have been reformatting disambiguation pages since January, at which time I read through the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages very thoroughly. I have not referred back to it very often since then. Apparently the guidelines have changed. Now having read the section "Examples of individual entries that should not be created", I agree with your assessment that the people named "Nikolay" or "Nikolai" should not be mixed with other entries. The entries should be moved to List of people named Nikolay.

If this change is made, the only entries left on Nikolay will be Nikolai, Alaska and Prince Nikolai of Denmark. I would suggest that Nikolai be switched from a redirect page to a short disambiguation page with these two entries and a "See also" section with a link to Nicholas and List of people named Nikolai. Nikolay could then be switched to a redirect page to List of people named Nikolay. Let me know what you think.

Neelix 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Neelix, thank you for your thorough explanation. Unannounced changes in the guidelines hit everyone every once in a while, so no problem there.

I have several comments regarding your response above. First of all, creating separate lists of people named "Nikolay" and "Nikolai" is really unnecessary. Both spellings refer to the same Russian name of "Николай"; the only difference is the transliteration method. Second, Prince Nikolai of Denmark wouldn't be the only one left. Both Nicholas I and II should stay, because they are well-known as either Nicholases or Nikola[y/i]s. Nikolai, Alaska, of course, is a definite keep. Alwin Nikolais should probably go, or he may be mentioned in the "see also" section.

Finally, about the list of people named Nikolay. Would you like to compile this list yourself, or would you prefer me doing it? For starters, it can include over sixty Nikolays listed in the list of Russians; others will surely follow.

Again, thanks for taking time to respond to this. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki,

I'm glad we're working this out together. The reason I have been editing pages relating to "Nicholas" is that all of its varients are listed on that page. I would like to use that page as a hub, each varient linked to a list of people with that name. That way, the etymology and origin of the names need only be recorded on the "Nicholas" page. A page called List of people named Nicholas could be linked as well. This would eliminate the need to have the "Famous persons with the name Nicholas" on the "Nicholas" page. I would also suggest that a person should be listed on only one of the "List of people named..." pages linked from "Nicholas". This would avoid needless repetition.

For this reason, I would not leave "Nicholas I of Russia" and "Nicholas II of Russia" on "Nikolay" as they could be listed on "List of people named Nicholas". As to who should make the changes, I would like to try, but there are so many varients that any help you could provide would be much appreciated. Let's solidify our solution before we start in. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Neelix 15:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Neelix, the problem with listing people in only one list has merit insofar as navigation is facilitated, but it may be a problem if it's the only approach we consider. Although "Nicholas XX" is the prevailing usage, it is not at all uncommon when these two emperors are referred to as Nikola[y/i] XX in English, and it is impossible to tell which of these titles a reader would expect to find. We, of course, should provide for both contingencies.

Considering how I handled similar situations in the past, here is how I would do it for Nicholas I (just an example):

• he would be listed as Nicholas I on the "Nicholas" dab page;
• "Nicholas" dab page would link to "Nikolay" dab page, to the "list of people named Nicholas", and to the "list of people named Nikolay" in the "see also" section;
• Nicholas I would be listed on "Nikolay" disambiguation page, with a note that while "Nicholas" is prevailing usage, "Nikolay" is also common (aka clause)
• "Nikolay" dab page would link to "Nicholas" dab page, to the "list of people named Nikolay", and to the "list of people named Nicholas" in the "see also" section;
• "Nikolay" proper would be an article about the name, its origins, and etimology, with cross-links to related dabs and lists;
• Nicholas I would be listed in the list of people named Nicholas;
• he would also be listed in the list of people named Nikolay, with a note stating that while "Nicholas" variant is more common in English, "Nikolay" is also used;

The reason why I prefer keeping both Nicholases on the "Nikolay" dab page is the same MOSDAB provision I cited above. They both are very frequently referred to simply by their single name, be it "Nicholas" or "Nikolay".

I understand that the original way you proposed is cleaner and simpler, but unfortunately it may not serve the best interests of readers (the "needless repetition" you mentioned is in fact not needless—in this particular case it serves a useful purpose). If you have other suggestions regarding how to improve this (admittedly quite complicated!) situation, I'll be more than happy to hear them out.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki,

I've never had such an in-depth conversation with someone on Wikipedia before. I do think we're getting somewhere.

I can understand why you want to list "Nicholas I of Russia" on so many different list pages and disambiguation pages, so I will go along with it. There are, however, a few things in the scheme you outlined which still seem to constitute "needless repitition":

You have suggested that "Nikolay" proper would be an article about the name, its origins, and etimology. Should not the origins and etimology of the name Nikolay and Nicholas both be explained on the Nicholas page as they are both derivatives of Nikolaos? The majority of this information should be the same. I would suggest that "Nikolay" be a redirect to "Nicholas" as that is where links to "List of people named derivative of Nikolaos" could be located. It is currently where the list of derivatives are located. If you feel that this location is biased towards the common English spelling, perhaps this information (derivatives along with their "List of people named..." links) could be located on the "Nikolaos" page and all its derivatives could redirect there (or link there in the case that a disambiguation page for a derivative is necessary).

It is important to develop a scheme which could be followed for all the derivatives of "Nikolaos" rather than just "Nikolay" and "Nikolai". Thank you for persisting with me in developing this scheme.

Neelix 16:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Neelix, I sure hope you are enjoying this discussion of ours, because I can go like that all day :) Thanks for bearing with me and for your patience.

To address your issues: first of all, just to clarify, I don't want to include these Russian tsars into every page related to "Nicholas", only to "Nicholas" itself and to "Nikolay" (and into two corresponding lists of people), so there are just four pages, not many.

Second, you are absolutely correct that the information about name origins and etimology should be (and already is) included in "Nicholas", not in "Nikolay". It was an oversight on my part—thanks for catching this inconsistency in my logic.

I wouldn't, however, make "Nikolay" a redirect to "Nicholas". From what I understand, you said above that you do not object to including Russian tsars to the "Nikolay" dab page. With the prince and the Alaskan town, there are four entries, which well justifies existence of a separate dab page. Same goes for all other variants of Nicholas—if there is a sufficient number of entries for a dab page, there should be a said dab; if the number of entries is two or less, then a redirect to "Nicholas" would suffice.

The dab pages, in turn, would point to "Nicholas" as the main article about the name, list entries which comply with MOSDAB, and provide links to applicable lists (such as "list of people named Nikolay" on "Nikolay" dab page) in the "see also" section.

As for minor name variations ("Nikolai" vs. "Nikolay"), this phenomenon is extremely common for Russian names. I would simply make "Nikolai" a redirect to "Nikolay" dab (not to "Nicholas"!) where all Nikolais and Nikolays would be bundled together. For a similar solution, check out Sovetsky, which lists all three forms (masculine, feminine, and neuter) of the Russian adjective, all of which redirect to that dab. "See also" also provides a link to Soviet (disambiguation) as well as a link to the derivative form Sovetsk.

I think such system covers all contingencies. Let me know if you see anything that wouldn't work if applied to the situation in question.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki,

I do believe we have come to some conclusion. The scheme you have outlined sounds like it would work very well. I do not see any problems with it. Would you mind reformatting "Nikolai", "Nikolay", "List of people named Nikolai", and "List of people named Nikolay" as you have suggested? I would like to view your edits in order to make sure I understand your method. If I still have no concerns, I will gladly use your formatting as a template for the other derivatives of "Nicholas", and possibly for other names after that.

I'm so glad we have worked this out. It has been good conversing with you.

Neelix 19:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a pleasure working with you too, Neelix. I will make an effort to work on Nicholas-related lists/dabs tomorrow; if nothing urgent comes up, that is. Let me know if you need anything else. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Lists

Hello again,

After doing some research into the subject, I believe the current convention is to do away with as many individual lists as possible, replacing them with categories. The rest are to be compiled by linking them all together, as in List of people by name or Lists of office-holders. The only guideline I have been able to find about who should not be included in "List of people by name" states that fictional people should not be included. In the case of people named Nikolai or Nikolay, it is probably best to simply list them in "List of people by name". Thank you for pointing this out. I could have wasted a lot of time compiling unconventional lists.

Neelix 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

PS - After looking into the matter a little more, I find that people are not listed on the "List of people by name" by their given name(s) if they have a surname. I am unsure of whether these people should be listed on a "List of people named..." page, although this would be my best guess. If you find out anything about this, please let me know.

Links to Wikimapia

Ezhiki, Thanks for editing help on Kstovo. Uniformity is indeed important. I was wondering though why you thought it desirable to remove the link to the wikimapia.org page? Having the new "coordinates" link was very good of course -- it gives links to all kinds of maps -- but it does not (yet) gives one a Wikimapia link. Which, in my view, is rather unfortunate, as Wikimapia is a unique resource that allows the readers not only to view an annotatted map, but also to participated in a collaborative annotation process, much in the spirit of Wikipedia itself. Also, their UI is nicer (I think) than that on maps.google.com, even though of course the maps come from the same database.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vmenkov (talk • contribs) .

Hi, Vmenkov! Thanks for contacting me.

Before you left your comment above, I was under impression that a link to Wikimapia is available through the list of maps attached to the article (you need to click on coordinates in the upper right corner of the article to get to that list). After checking, I see that Wikimapia's link is not in that list, so I am restoring it in the external links section for the time being. Thanks for pointing it out, and please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Move...

Добрый день!

Я тут промахнулся. прошу переименоловать Википедия:Interwiki Report/ruwiki обратно в User:MaxSem/ruwiki - я промахнулся с проектами... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 16:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Готово. Вроде бы ничего сам не напутал :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Замечательно! Спасибо большое! :-). Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 18:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Blacksmith Institute

Blacksmith Institute - need your help in checking spell for russian places. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, but I wonder if this organization is even notable. Have you heard of them before?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, 30 minutes ago. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know them longer than that—a whole day :) Anyway, they get 16,000+ Google hits, which seems pretty notable.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I even noticed them without Google. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Copyright

By assuming that most copyright page have an anti right click lock and by also assuming that it does not have a copyright insignia on the bottom right, I assume it to have no copyright, but that is in my opinion, I interpret the Copright rules loosely, so if its no there then its not copyright. You of course maybe have stricter interpretation.