User talk:Greyhood

/Archive 2008-2010

/Archive 2011 January-June

List of Russian inventions

Hello. I want to create a separate page from Timeline of Russian inventions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tempac3/sandbox

Please to assist in this glorious task of write. Tempac3 (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to create? List of inventions sorted by topic rather than by year? If so, good idea! I'll try to help.. GreyHood ^Talk 11:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And its compact format would allow to also include discoveries. Tempac3 (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, though it is more logical to include discoveries into a separate list. GreyHood ^Talk 16:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Russian souvenirs

A question for you at Template talk:Russian souvenirs.   Will Beback  talk  10:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've responded there. GreyHood ^Talk 11:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

NCRUS - DAB populates places

You left comments for my two proposals at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Russia)#DAB populates places. I proposed the minimum common ground ("Localityname, Russia") at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/July#Remove Russia-specific clause and apply general rules. Hope we can at least move forward on the comma question. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll watch for the discussion. GreyHood ^Talk 12:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Aban, Russia - Five moves for Aban, Russia so far, almost one move per year. The "class" gives rise to speculations. And when someone discovers a second Aban in Russia it may go back to Aban, Krasnoyarsk Krai. I will address this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/July#Remove Russia-specific clause and apply general rules. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Good summer to you, too!

Thanks for the barnstar! It does make me feel better that the problem is not so much with my arguments as it is with people's personal tastes clouding their judgement :)

Seriously, though, no problem. We all have different views on some matters. If the proposal doesn't pass, it doesn't pass. If it does, at least I can feel comfortable knowing that I put up a good fight.

I hope you have a great vacation and will return to editing refreshed and invigorated. It goes without saying that I'll keep an eye on the assessments and will continue with my daily batches.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 11, 2011; 13:40 (UTC)

Welcome back! I hope you've enjoyed your vacation. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 1, 2011; 15:02 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Actually there is one summer month ahead and my off-wiki vacation goes on. Now I have Internet connection at the place of my summer residence and can enjoy Wikipedia as well as the sun and fresh air. GreyHood ^Talk 15:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Good for you, eh? I'll just continue rotting in my office then (enjoying the sun and fresh air only through a sealed window). Just saying... :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 1, 2011; 16:24 (UTC)

Well, I must confess I'm not on a beach with notebook and wi-fi connection.. ;) I can't enjoy the sun and the editing simultaneously, oh, alas.. GreyHood ^Talk 16:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As cruel as it may sound, knowing this does make me feel a little better :) as you may have already guessed, I'm so far not enjoying my summer all that much... oh well :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 1, 2011; 17:01 (UTC)

I suppose that summer at your latitude is longer than at mine (if only your office is not in Alaska), so I hope your chances for enjoying the sun are still high. GreyHood ^Talk 17:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Goodwin's Law

You reverted them, therefore you are a nazi: [1]. I don't know what type of investigation they are referring to, but I thought you should be aware of this despite the whole group of them having been blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, that's interesting. GreyHood ^Talk 09:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Russian gdp etc

"nominal GDP is recognizable enough term; in 2009 there was recession; the figures of nominal wages growth seem to be perfectly valid - despite internal inflation, that was still huge growth in terms of international capabilities"

If you think nominal GDP is more recognizable then ok, but it really makes no sense to call it that. It's nominal GDP converted at exchange rates.

With regard to the other two changes. The 2010 is the most up to date one. But if you're going to change it back to 2008 you should change the % back to 5%. Also 4% growth in 2010 does not sound like a recession.

But most of all the 80$ and 600$ figures are completely wack. I don't know who the idiot who wrote the story for AP is but they need a remedial course in economics. Yes, between 2000 and 2008 there was a lot of growth. About 70% in terms of per capita income in fact. But not 750%, that is simply ridiculous (actually, even accounting for inflation, which over the period was roughly 100%). 70% growth over 8 years is nothing to sneeze at. Over the same period growth in US for example was something like 10-12%. China during the same period grew by about 75%. A change of 750% implies an annual growth rate of about 28% which has never happened in the history of any country on earth in terms of real income. And the only time it has happened for nominal incomes is in cases of runaway inflation. I would just remove that sentence and replace it with numbers for per capita income from academic sources or from international organizations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, with all those typical infobox parameters and lists like the List of countries by GDP (nominal) the term seems OK and no need for further specifications.

I've fixed the figure of average growth back to 7%, thanks for reminding me of this.

Since there was recession in 2009 it was incorrect to speak about 11 straight years of growth. Though, perhaps, the sentence could be reworded to reflect more details and more recent data.

If you have better sources for income, please insert them to the article. However, this document from Rosstat shows that the average wage in Russia was 2223,4 roubles in 2000 and 17290,1 roubles in 2008 which is 670% growth in roubles. Given the fact that rouble became stronger to dollar between 2000-2008, I'd expect that 750% growth in dollar value would be normal. Yes, there was inflation etc, but when we are speaking in nominal terms, that seems normal. Also, while there was internal inflation which reduced the real income increase, the possibilities of Russia in imports and in foreign travel grew significantly. GreyHood ^Talk 15:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Taskforces

OK, here's one that doesn't fit under any of our taskforces. Any ideas what to do about it?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2011; 14:50 (UTC)

Well, since criminals are related to law enforcement and the latter is related to politics we should use the Politics of Russia task force, isn't it? GreyHood ^Talk 15:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That was my line of thought, too, but it is not obvious at the first glance and looks quite weird. Perhaps we should have a taskforce for all things legal?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2011; 16:31 (UTC)

I thought about renaming "Politics of Russia task force" into something like "Politics and law of Russia task force" or "Politics and law enforcement in Russia task force".. GreyHood ^Talk 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That could work. "Law" is probably better than "law enforcement", as it is broader and could include legal stuff that would otherwise have to be put under "science".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2011; 17:14 (UTC)

Indeed, "Politics and law" is better. If you feel we need the change (personally I'm OK without it, but that's a matter of habit), please rename the relevant pages (though, what about the bot-generated content?). GreyHood ^Talk 17:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have time for this now, but I'll add it to my to-do list for later (or, if you want to try taking care of this yourself, you are more than welcome to). I'm not sure about the bot-generated content either, but it should be easy enough to figure it out once we start digging. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2011; 17:45 (UTC)

Guest from the Future

"Gost'ja" in Russian is plural (guest). "Gost'" is singular (guests). Although a source reports it in singular, I don't understand this edit.

"Гостья" (gost'ja) is singular feminine in Russian. Plural would be "гости" (gost'i) or, plural feminine, "гостьи" (gost'ji). GreyHood ^Talk 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, ur right! Sorry but I dont... --Crystall Ball (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruswelcome

Just so you know, when you are using this template to welcome users, you need to substitute it, otherwise this happens :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 9, 2011; 13:23 (UTC)

Ah, OK. GreyHood ^Talk 16:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Leaning Tower of Nevyansk

Hello, Greyhood. You have new messages at AmateurEditor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Greyhood. You have new messages at AmateurEditor's talk page.
Message added 22:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gennady

You can only move an article over a redirect when that redirect constitutes the whole editing history. "Gennady of Novgorod" has a bot edit on top of the original redirect, which requires deletion.

I have moved the article to match the naming scheme in Category:Russian saints. There are also a couple more parenthesized titles in that cat you might want to look at, but most are titled "Religionist of Foo", so it makes perfect sense to unify them all that way. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 10, 2011; 13:43 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll look at other titles, and thanks for the move and explanation. GreyHood ^Talk 13:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

IrAero

G'day from Oz; could you check the edit history of IrAero as well please? Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed that. GreyHood ^Talk 13:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Leaning Tower of Nevyansk

Greyhood, why haven't you yet reverted your reverts of my edits? The russian search results you provided on my talk page show that the tower is related to Mainz Cathedral and St. Isaac's due to the use of reinforced concrete, not an iron dome. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've responded at your talk page, sorry for the delay. GreyHood ^Talk 09:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Greyhood. You have new messages at AmateurEditor's talk page.
Message added AmateurEditor (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Greyhood. You have new messages at AmateurEditor's talk page.
Message added AmateurEditor (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Картина «Васильки» С. Осипова

• Добрый день Коллега, не мог удержаться и не пригласить вас на это обсуждение, которому предшествовало это обсуждение номинации, длившееся более месяца. Речь идёт о нравах участников в связи с обсуждением русской версии статьи Cornflowers (painting). Без комментариев. С уважением, Leningradartist (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Занятно. Спасибо, обычно я не участвую в обсуждении статей русской Википедии, но возможно присоединюсь к этой дискуссии позже. GreyHood ^Talk 10:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice job splitting the Varangian Guard article. I'm not being sarcastic. :) Alphasinus (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was planning to do this split long ago, and also to expand Varangians article. Laziness, however, prevails. GreyHood ^Talk 10:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you intend to expand the Varangians article? Alphasinus (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Translate some staff from the Russian version of the article, add more images. GreyHood ^Talk 19:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Saint Petersburg Dam

--RxS (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanx! GreyHood ^Talk 10:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Pushkin template

Template:Alexander Pushkin

I made this template for Pushkin's works. Can you take a look at it and see what you think? I'm sure it can be greatly improved. --INeverCry 01:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Great! Perhaps we may add some articles related to Pushkin's biography to a new section in the article. I'm not sure howevere whether it is a normal practice with other writers and poets. GreyHood ^Talk 10:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A "people" section and/or a "related articles" section could be added, but it might make the template a bit bulky.

Also, I removed all the red links as per Wikipedia:Navigation templates, which recommends that articles be written first.--INeverCry 17:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice work on the other writer templates. GreyHood ^Talk 13:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's another: Template:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn --INeverCry 16:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

And another: Template:Ivan Bunin --INeverCry 17:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

And another: Template:Maxim Gorky--INeverCry 22:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent move

Hi

That was a little curt. Anyway, the problem is the "Greek" part. I simply moved it back to a previously used title. The route did not go to Greece, it went to the Byzantine Empire.

While I appreciate your concerns, perhaps we can come to an agreement as to what it should be, or nom for a move proposal.

The tile that was previously used is from the primary chronicles I believe?

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I tell you again, the name of the article is an idiom and a historical term. The Russian Wikipedia article and almost all other Wikipedias' articles on that route are named using translations of the Russian phrase From the Varangians to the Greeks (unless other languages have their own specific names). Whether it is from the Primary Chronicle or not I don't remember. It doesn't matter where the route led to if we know its name and the name is a fixed idiomatic phrase. Also, the route led also to Greece as a part of the Byzantine Empire, and Byzantines were known as Greeks in sorrounding countries at that time, so your reasoning is not entirely correct.

So I kindly ask you to revert your move. GreyHood ^Talk 21:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but the point here is that in English the Greeks and the Byzantines are two entirely different things. If you are saying it is a translation from Russian, then I cannot comment, as I do not read Russian. I would rather it remain as it is, it is commonly known as the "Varangian Route" or "Varangian Road" in English books, but feel free to revert it. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

At some point of history, and specifically at the period we discuss Greeks were part of Byzantines, and the largest part. "Varangian Route" or "Varangian Road" are not the best terms since there were two major Varangian routes, the second being the Volga trade route. GreyHood ^Talk 21:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, you should understand that if the move is not uncontroversial, than WP:Move request should be made instate of moving the article right away as you wish. Cheers! GreyHood ^Talk 21:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The move was not controversial. The previous page move was against the consensus on the talk page in 2006 Talk:Varangian-Byzantine_trade_route#Title, where the consensus of three editors was that the title "Varangian-Byzantine trade route" was correct. How can you suggest that it is controversial when three editors discussed it and I agreed with them?

That is why I am not going to revert myself, it would be against the consensus of that discussion. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The subsequent discussion on that page shows that the consensus changed. GreyHood ^Talk 21:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If anything, it simply says that the largest amount were of the opinion that it should be Varangian-Byantine, fewer for Varangian-Greek, and less for the original title. I have already stated I do not mind you reverting, and that I will not as I feel it is against consensus. Is there is a particular reason, technical or another that I am unaware of, as to why you feel I should move it rather than you? Chaosdruid (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the discussion in the next section shows that the editorial consesus changed, both through talk page discussion and edit history.

And yes, thanks for the advice, I've changed the title back. Sorry for the confusion, I thought that only an admin would be able to make revert move and that if you ask yourself to do it there would be less bureaucracy. But for some reason there was a technical possibility for me to move it back. GreyHood ^Talk 22:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I've sounded curt. You are welcome to suggest a proper move request or start a new title discussion on the talk page to seek a new consensus, of course. Varangian-Byzantine trade route actually gets just about 1.5 times less google hits than Trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks and an attempt to suggest it as a new name might be not entirely without a chance. But anyway, it should be done properly, without simply changing a part of an idiomatic expression in the text. Cheers! GreyHood ^Talk 22:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, a moved page that only leaves a redir and is not subsequently edited can be moved back without any issue. I suspect that a move proposal will be in order in the future, though I would do more research before entertaining any such suggestion; there are too many factors involved, such as common English name and recentism. Anyway, I am glad it is all sorted out for now :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Bulgakov template

Template:Mikhail Bulgakov --INeverCry 20:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Johanna Beisteiner

Dear Greyhood, My article about the Austrian guitarist Johanna Beisteiner, created in July, is rated as Stub-Class. Today I added some more detailed information, fotos and references to this article. I think it is clearly better now. Could you please check the new version, tell me your opinion and rate it again? (I write you because two days ago you rated my article about the Russian composer Eduard Shafransky). Best regards,--Culturawiki (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the rating to Start-class now. It could be C or B class if you expand the article a bit more. GreyHood ^Talk 16:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Through a portage

Alphasinus, once again, do you realise that this image doesn't illustrate Varangians? It is called originally "Волокут волоком" which means "Pulling through a portage", and it doesn't say the men illustrated are Varangians? Do you see that they wear traditional Russian and Slavic white clothes with national red ornaments? GreyHood ^Talk 17:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about traditional Slavic clothes, but it's quite obvious that those are viking ships. In addition, the practise of pulling ships through portages was very characteristic of how the varangians navigated their travels in Russia.

Firstly, Slavic ships looked very similar to Viking ships (or at least they do look in modern depictions). Secondly, not only Varangians, but obviously Slavs themselves and maybe other peoples navigated in the same way. Sorry, but your choice of this picture as a lead one is blatantly wrong. It is obviously much more Slavic than Varangian. I'm removing this picture from the article. GreyHood ^Talk 08:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your claim that Slavs created similliar ships with dragon heads on the prow? In this book it says that many non-varangian locals helped pull the boats, but does that make such a picture unsuitable?.Encyclopedia of European People

Secondly, ending the lead on the Varangians article with anti-normanist theories is kinda undue pov. Anyways, anti-normanists disputed the Norse identiy of the Rus, not of the Varangians.Great Soviet Encyclopedia 1979. That Varangians reportedly were "people from the Baltic region", is a notion i've never heard before, and it sounds almost like it implies that the Varangians were ethnic Balts. All mainstream sources refer to the Varangians as Norsemen,Varangians definition and Encyclopedia Britannica does not even bother to differentiate between Varangians and Vikings.Varangians Alphasinus (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Dragon heads were not exclusive to Varangians or Vikings. According to one hypothesis, Slavs have early adopted the Varangian shipbuilding techniques, and basically the early Slavic ships, called ladya, were similar to longships in many ways. Slavs, however, navigated the East European rivers and the Black Sea even before the Varangians, starting from the 6th century, and Slavic/Varangian river-going ships were not so long as ocean-going western longships for the reason of maneuverability on the rivers. Here, for example, is an illustration of a Slavic military ladya with text from a book "История корябля" (History of ships). Also, remember that Slavs not only pulled ships for Varangians, but for themselves as well, and Slavs were a majority. GreyHood ^Talk 08:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)