Jump to content

User talk:Ezhiki

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kniaz (talk | contribs) at 03:35, 1 April 2006 (Got it). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reference: 

Archived talk: 2004 2005 2006

Pavlovsk

Saying that Pavlovsk is "in" Leningrad oblast is like saying that Gibraltar is "in" Spain. While both of these may be true, Pavlovsk is not part of Leningrad oblast, and Gibraltar is not part of Spain. Backspace 23:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what your point is. Perhaps it would better to say that Pavlovsk is located on the territory of Leningrad Oblast (as opposed to "in" it), because St. Petersburg itself is located on the territory of Leningrad Oblast and is its administrative center. The Gibraltar example is irrelevant because the administrative situation there is entirely different. As for Pavlovsk being under jurisdiction of St. Petersburg (not oblast), it was already mentioned before you made your edits. I don't see why it should be repeated twice in the same paragraph.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the English Wikipedia article on Russia, which you yourself have edited, it is stated that Russia is divided into 88 federal subjects. They are all mutually exclusive of one another. Two of these subjects are Leningrad oblast and Saint Petersburg federal city. Although Saint Petersburg is obvious geographically inside Leningrad oblast (i.e., it is surrounded by it), the two are administratively separate, not of the same federal subject. If they were part of the same subject, I would gather, there would only be 87 federal subjects. That Saint Petersburg is the administrative center of Leningrad oblast is irrelevant to the topic; after all, there are many counties in the U.S. state of Virginia that are administered from "independent cities" that are geographically outside of the county. That is all that I meant, that something is either in (part of, not "surrounded by") one entity or the other. Backspace 02:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are not correct about the "mutually exclusive" part. The majority of the autonomous districts of Russia, for example, are administratively parts of other federal subjects, which nevetheless does not prevent them from being separate federal subjects on their own. Saint Petersburg and Moscow are quite a similar story. You are putting too much faith into Russians doing things logically—they hardly ever do :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 03:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not quite understanding. There is a List of federal subjects of Russia by population which lists the population by federal subject. Without mutual exclusivity, am I to assume that the total population of Russia would be more than or less than the total that I would obtain if I were to add up the individual entities? How did they carve up Russia to obtain these numbers. I would assume that each and every one of the individuals counted in "Saint Petersburg" would not appear in "Leningrad Oblast" also. It would not be logical to have any individual person counted in two (or more) different entities, it would seem to me. Backspace 06:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That list (and the List of federal subjects of Russia by area) has long been on my to-do list, but I never got to sorting it out (changing the lists is easy, but changing every article which links to it is quite tedious). Both lists indeed count the nested autonomous districts twice (once as a part of the federal subject they are a part of, and once on their own—e.g., Krasnoyarsk Krai's area/population is given including the area/population of Taymyria and Evenkia, as well as Krasnoyarsk Krai proper, but both Taymyria and Evenkia are included separately as well). The area/population of Moscow Oblast and Leningrad Oblast, however, do not include those of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Such approach is traditional in Russian political geography and statistics. The reason is purely economic—budgets of nested regions depend on the budgets of the federal subjects they are subordinated to, so all statistical parameters are bundled together, but since such nested regions enjoy some degree of autonomy (unlike raions), there is a need to track their stats separately as well. Moscow and St. Petersburg always enjoyed a special status (both in modern Russia and in the USSR), and their budgets are quite independent from those of the oblasts they govern.
While this works fine and dandy in practice, I can see how awfully confusing and illogical it may seem to a person reading the general overview without being aware of these intricacies. Explaining all this in the article on Russian subdivisions is another thing on my to-do list, but I long since stopped making promises about when I am actually going to do something, because I found myself breaking such promises all too often.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have finally enlightened me to the point of satisfaction regarding the Russian subjects. I shall adjust my areas and populations downward in the entities which contain other entities. I hope that this will result in agreement with figures for Russia as a whole. Thank you very much. I hope that this will end this lengthy discussion. I still, however, stand by my original contention that Pavlovsk is not in Leningrad oblast, my definition of "in" being "part of" and not "surrounded by". I will not re-edit that particular article, however, as I know that you would immediately revert it. Were I to find other articles (non-Russia-related, in order to be safe from your reversions) with a similar statement, I would have to do as I believe. Backspace 19:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite wrong about me immediately reverting the change you want to make. I can quite accept an idea of being wrong every once in a while. Encyclopedic accuracy for me is way more important than a question of who was right and who was not. Please do not regard me as a hawk flying over the Russian geography-related articles jealously protecting them from intruders. I keep a close watch on them, true, but only to make sure that less informed editors do not make edits that may seem logical to them but are in fact contrary to the truth.
Returning to Pavlovsk—the differences in viewpoints there are so fine and under-defined, that it can be regarded as both being "in" Leningrad Oblast and being separate from it, depending on the aspect one is reviewing (administrative, economic, or geographical). It would perhaps be better to edit that particular sentence out of the article altogether and stick to purely geographic definitions of "where", not unlike it's done in the article on Ust-Izhora. The sentence about Pavlovsk being under the jurisdiction of St. Petersburg should, of course, stay.
If you are going to edit the article on area/population rankings of the federal subjects, please do not forget to update all the articles that link to it (infoboxes on most of federal subjects will have to be updated as the rankings are bound to shift).
Please do not hesitate to contact me again if you have any questions or need clarifications. I'm always glad to be of assistance. Thank you very much for your interest to this subject—due to its fairly low popularity it's not very often I get to enjoy a conversation about it with someone.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 20:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to imply that my population/area figures were for the purpose of editing Wikipedia articles. The are solely for my own use. (One of my main interests is geography.) I will defer the editing of Wikipedia articles on Russia to you, now that I know that you have a lot more expertise than I do. Backspace 02:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pity I wasn't able to nudge you into it :) You are always welcome to come back and join in on the fun.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows? Maybe I just might give it a try. It's strange though, that the populations of the subjects as of the 2002 census are known down to the very last man/woman, but that I can't find any precise figure for Russia as a whole in the Russia article (it even says "2000 census" there; did they have two within two years?). If I were to do the math correctly, am I to assume that I would be the first person in history to know the exact population of Russia in the 2002 census? Well, I think that we'd better end this discussion soon, before we run out of room at the right side of this column. Backspace 20:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know about you, but I have a pretty big monitor :)) As for the numbers being exact to the last person, that is, of course, silliness. They are that accurate only because the census results were reported that way. Most end users would round them, but I don't think it is acceptable to do for them in an encyclopedia.
You are quite correct about the general Russia article—there was no census in 2000; only estimates are available. As a matter of fact, the 2002 Census is the first one conducted in modern Russia; the previous one was the All-Soviet Census of 1989, and the next one is planned for 2010. The article on Russia sees quite a bit of vandalism and well-intentioned but factually incorrect edits; I would guess the "2000 Census" is one that was not caught in time (I corrected that). The population figure given by the 2002 Census was 145,513,037. If you can read Russian, perepis2002.ru is the official website of the Census with all the results you may ever be interested in. Hope this helps. Feel free to start a new section if you have additional questions, because we deviated from discussing Pavlovsk quite a bit, and people with smaller monitors are probably already reading these last comments vertically :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did the math and I found a downloaded Excel file at your www.peripis2002.ru website which seems to confirm my numbers (for population, so far; I still have to confirm the areas). However, that number for the total is 145,166,731, and not the number that you gave me. I don't read any Russian aside from making out the sounds of the letters of the alphabet (names of places are fairly easy; the grammar you can have!!!). I'm fascinated by how much information is on this spreadsheet concerning the populations of any town you'd care to find, broken down by federal subject! You can confirm this by downloading the #4 item on the linked page. Backspace 20:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That particular Excel spreadsheet is the one I am using to update population figures in Wikipedia, and yes, it's amazing how good of a job they did! As for the number discrepancies, the spreadsheet figure (145,166,731) includes only Russian permanent residents who were located on the territory of the Russian Federatin during the Census. The other number (145,513,037) also includes Russian citizens abroad (excluding yours truly and probably quite a few other people who did not bother to participate), as well as people who permanently reside outside of Russia, but at the time of the Census were located on its territory.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to that spreadsheet, here is a summary of what I found relative to those two Wikipedia lists as they currently exist. 1. The Siberian entities that contain other federal subjects do indeed also include their populations and areas in their totals; therefore, these populations/areas are doubled up when you total them. 2. Beyond that, and inconsistently, the populations of Moscow and Saint Petersburg are separated from their surrounding oblasts, but the areas of Moscow oblast and Leningrad oblast both include the areas of the cities inside ("surrounded by") them. The populations of Chechnya and Ingushetia are correctly (?) separated, but the area of Chechnya also includes that of Ingushetia. (It is stated that the areas of these subjects is undefined, but how they got exact populations for each without a definition is beyond me.) 3. The area for Volgograd oblast is flat-out wrong, and should be 113,900 km² instead of 114,100 km². Backspace 22:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is a note to that effect, but like I said before, the areas should really be listed separately.
  2. You are correct about Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Both the population and the area should be either included with or counted separately from those of the oblasts they govern. That will need correction. As for Chechnya and Ingushetia, there is nothing puzzling here. The border is indeed still undefined, but that refers to the exact border. It is impossible to calculate exact areas of both republics without a defined border, but counting population is fairly easy, because all of these two republics' settlements are under jurisdiction of either Chechnya or Ingushetia. If a person reports that s/he is living in a Chechen settlement, s/he is included into the Chechnya's population, if s/he is living in an Ingush settlement, then, correspondingly, s/he is included with Ingushetia's population.
  3. This is a very interesting discovery you made. All of the areas of the federal subjects came directly from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which reports the Volgograd Oblast's area to be 114,100 km². A quick search in modern sources gives the area of 113,900 km². The latter is most likely correct, although I can't tell you off the top of my head what happened to those 200 km². To say I am intrigued is an understatement. The only administrative change of that scale I am aware of is the transfer of Sokolsky District of Ivanovo Oblast to jurisdiction of Nizhny Novgorod Oblast in 1994 (this transfer, by the way, is also not accounted for in the area figures in Wikipedia).—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 22:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would something that occurred in 1994 not be accounted for in the 2002 census? (Download #3 item figure on previously referenced page agrees with Wikipedia numbers.) Backspace 21:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't mean the population figures, I meant the areas. Sorry about the confusion.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC) And I also forgot about the fact that there are area figures available on the Census site. The 1994 transfer is accounted for in #3. As for the Volgograd Oblast discrepancy, I couldn't find anything yet.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

Italicized Russian looks perfectly legible to me, so I guess I disagree with the consensus. Furthermore, people who do not know the cyrillic alphabet very well can hope to gain little or nothing from whole words written in it. Lastly, italicizing foreign-language words in similar templates seems to be the norm, and I'm not sure that the dubious value of making cyrillic words minutely more legible for the benefit of people whose understanding of a word is hampered by much more than italics, is worth deviating from that norm. Example: Vyborg has its name listed in four languages, the other three of which are italicized. Does not look good.

Of course it would look legible to you—you are a native speaker (or so I assume). I have no problem reading it myself, even if one writes it out as a captcha :) There were, however, several complaints from users for whom Russian was not native, and who could read Cyrillic in general, but to whom italicized Cyrillic letters were confusing. To accomodate these users, Russian was de-italicized permanently per community consensus. If you wish to disagree with the consensus (which is one of your rights as a Wikipedian), you'll have to initiate a discussion and see if the consensus changed (a straw poll at Template talk:lang-ru will probably suffice); simply saying "I don't like it and that's that" just won't cut it.
I am all for consistency myself, but this is one of the cases where consistency takes a back seat to end-user convenience. Also, please do not remove the noinclude sections of the templates—they are there for other editors' reference.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Russian cities/towns infoboxes

Привет, не за что. Я на самом деле не понял, к чему некоторые поля относятся, например, nickname - это имя жителей или прозвище города. Надо будет проверить.

Ответы по пунктам.

  • Высоты - откуда придётся (Н-ск - по аэропортам). Знаю, что так нельзя. :)
  • ну, можно поискать данные обл- и крайстатов. Либо всё откатить на 2002, но 2 строку там не получится добавить - он же стандартный.
  • про часовой пояс вопроса не понял. Его в шаблоне можно написать по имени.
  • дык я везде поставил ссылки на муниципалитеты.
  • Вот с этим я не знаю, что делать. У меня тот же вопрос. :) Шаблон достаточно беден. Я могу расширить шаблон, уже в русской Вике сделал шаблон аэропорта. А что аборигены (то есть англоязычные) говорят на этот счёт? Ъыь 15:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realize that you were using the standard template. I guess it would be the best to develop a whole new one ({RussianCityTown} or something of the sort), and expand it with the fields we need. I don't think anybody would object to that, as long as we keep that template to Russian locations. That should take care of most of the points I raised. Such a template is actually on my to-do list, but only after the Russian federal subjects WikiProject is completed, and that one is not going anywhere at this time. Still, let me know if you need help; I'll be around.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

А, вспомнил, высоты посмотрю по SRTM (~Shuttle Radar Topography Mission). Ъыь 15:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That'll (probably) work, but it needs to eventually be mentioned in the References section.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Produnova

I just spotted this stub, and also noticed an already existing link to Yelena Produnova. Now I'm undecided whether to create a redirect, or move the stub according to naming conventions. What's your opinion? Cheers, --Nikai 13:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In such cases I usually use the spelling variation the person him/herself wants to be known under (but that is not an explicit Wikipedia policy/guideline). If that is hard to verify, then regular translit guidelines (i.e. WP:RUS) kick in. If I found this myself, I would most likely move her to Yelena Produnova, especially since the intro gives both variants. Russian people's names are currently a grey area in the rules.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krasny Bor

In connection with the new article Battle of Krasny Bor I noticed that Krasny Bor mentioned in the article cannot be the one in Nizhny Novgorod Oblast. I also doubt that Savicheva was buried that far from Leningrad. As you are an expert in Russian geography and disambigs, I believe you could investigate this issue. Thanks for your time, Ghirla -трёп- 17:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right, of course, that Battle of Krasny Bor refers to a different settlement (namely to an urban settlement of the same name in Leningrad Oblast). There are also at least four other villages of that name elsewhere in Russia (Nizhny Novgorod Oblast included). I will create the dab page.
As for Savicheva, looks like she was indeed buried in Nizhny Novgorod Oblast [1].—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the dab. I knew something was up but I didn't have the slightest idea where to begin to look for the correct Krasny Bor. Albrecht 03:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 12:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Komsomolskaya Square

I would appreciate your comments. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2 - what happened

I think what happened is the page you had edited Height 611 UFO Incident was vandalized and caught by Tawkerbot2, for reasons still unknown to me (that I'm working on) it's grabbing the wrong editor for the vandal notice, its a fairly rare bug, I'm trying to determine if its a bot bug or if Wikipedia is giving the bot bogus info, its just weird but I'm working on it. Sorry about that -- 20:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Cities in Soviet Union

Hi Ezhiki. I am writing a college essay about Soviet Union. Can you tell me names of a few cities or towns like Mednogorsk, built during the Stalin's rule? Thank you. - Darwinek 10:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few, actually. The ones I can think right away are Komsomolsk in Ivanovo Oblast (note it is different from Komsomolsk-on-Amur, which is in Amur Oblast), Magnitogorsk, Boksitogorsk, Novokuznetsk, and Krasnouralsk.
Towns like Asbest, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Pervouralsk were founded a lot earlier, but they became major industrial centers (and, as a result, were granted town status) in the 1930s.
Let me know if this is not enough; I'll look up more for you.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suburbs of Saint Petersburg

Fiss started this duplicative category today. Should it be posted for deletion? --Ghirla -трёп- 17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'll take care of it. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Russia

Отлично! I'll take a look at it

--Майкоп 18:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smackbot request

Hi, Rich. Could you, please, exclude the "xxxx in Fooian television" series (such as 1930 in television) from the Smackbot's delink list? These series is one of the few places where linking months makes sense (due to the way tables are laid out). I reverted the changes made so far. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Consider it done. Any other requests, or if this crops up again, please let me know. Rich Farmbrough 13:54 23 March 2006 (UTC).

Mediation update

To be fair if you really want to continue it then by all means do, but I will agree to revert the -IYE to -YE for -ЫЕ, whilst keeping all of my other edits (-YI,-IY, I for Й, ye for E only in start of words. Also I just noticed how you edited Lyublinskaya Line, do explain to me why Maryino when there is no Й in Марьино? Also why Dostoyevskaya, when the article is titled Fyodor Dostoevsky. Why not then Kiyevskaya? (Sorry for being a pain in arse, but then you know the feeling of constantly pressuring someone about a logical correction, and WP policy does say use the most common words, I do dare you to google the latter - Kiyev) :) [37,800 google hits—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis)] On the positive side, I have compleately recategorised the wikicommons on Moscow Metro (link from the Metro page). I do need as many high-quality images that can be found. Would it be too much to ask you to snap a few? Particulary of the newer addtions Delovoi Tsentr, second exit of Mayakovskaya, Vykhino after reconstruction... Also all of the Metro templates now have actual links from the station bullets. --Kuban Cossack 00:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I intend to proceed with the mediation. The reason for it, however, is not to establish whose transliteration system is right or better, it is to upheld existing rules until such time as they are amended. If current rules mandated using "q" for a soft sign, that's what I would be enforcing now. If that approach of mine seems a bit excessively bureaucratic to you, I am sorry, but that's how I understand my admin duties. With all that in mind, I'm more than open to listening to your or anyone else's suggestions at WP:CYR. Now, as for your questions:
  • WP:RUS currently requires using "y" for a soft sign followed by a non-iotated vowel (it is conventional);
  • I don't remember what happened to "Ki(y)evskaya"; most likely I missed it when I was making changes. The reason why I insist that particular word and words similar to it are spelled differently ("Kiev" vs. "Kiyevskaya"; "Dostoevsky" vs. "Dostoyevskaya", etc.) is due to the fact that these are different entities the names of which are governed by different rules. Kiev is a city in Ukraine, which is very well-known to English speakers, and its name is governed by the "use common English" rule. Kiyevskaya, on the other hand, is a relatively obscure (compared to the city, anyway) metro station, for which "common English use" rule would not apply, and which, therefore, falls under transliteration provisions. The latter mandate the "ye" spelling for "е" following a vowel. Same goes for Dostoevsky (a well-known writer) and Dostoyevskaya (a little-known station). I am not asking you to agree with me, but I hope you at least see what my logic is. Perhaps the issue of derivative names can be covered separately at WP:CYR, but to me it would just mean complicating already over-complicated rules.
  • As for the metro pictures, I would be more than happy to help, but that would require me to take a trip to Moscow, which I was not planning to do any time soon :) I live in the U.S. Midwest, actually. I am sure, though, that if you ask around at the Russian portal, you'll find some Muscovites who would agree to help. You did a great job on the metro overall, though—pretty impressive!
Hope this answers your questions. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need anything else.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Просьба

Пишу по-русски, так как дело касается нашего раздела. У нас тут несколько накалилась ситуация с админами, вандалами, троллями и прочими дрязгами (см. ru:ВП:ВУ). Ты человек опытный, и как я уже не раз убедился дотошный и справедливый. Не мог бы ты уделить немного внимания нашему мини-сообществу, мне кажется что тебе как человеку незамешанному в этих скандалах будет проще дать дельный совет (анализ). Не уверен, какой он может иметь статус, но для меня лично это будет очень важным мнением. Как знать, возможно что немного поучаствовав в нашем сообществе ты принесёшь бОльшую пользу Википедии, чем отредактировав 100 статей здесь. Ну а нет, так нет, ничего страшного. Заранее спасибо. MaxiMaxiMax 09:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Привет, Макс. Я честно прочитал ru:ВП:ВУ от и до и, причесав вставшие дыбом волосы, решил, что это удовольствие не для меня. Все эти кто-то на кого-то обиделся, "Андрюшка меня ка́кой обозвал", "а я сказал, а он сказал, а мы подумали" — не для меня это. Пока все разбираются в том, кто кого обидел, дело стоит. И очень уж много нелицеприятных моментов как со стороны юзеров, так и админов, да и культура дискуссий оставляет желать лучшего. Стало понятно, отчего в английской Википедии там и тут начали появляться сбежавшие русские википедисты. Поэтому, как бы я ни рад был помочь, в данном конкретном случае будет это как с пятого этажа мордой в грязь. Да и правила в русской Википедии другие — мой тутошний админский опыт, боюсь, там многого стоить не будет, а изучение мною ваших конкретных правил вряд ли чем-либо окупится. Хотелось бы дать какой-нибудь умный совет по улучшению ситуации, да только вот ничего кроме "будьте взаимно вежливы" в голову не идёт. Очень, очень грустно. Вот такой вот мой анализ :(—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Понятно, спасибо и на том. Мне тоже грустно. Несомненно, все стороны вели себя небезупречно и за несколько лет пока ru_wiki была маленькой и ненаселённой, админы (я в том числе) расслабились, точных правил не создавалось, всё делалось в расчёте на здравый смысл и добрую волю. Сейчас же явно появляются непримеримые противоборствующие группировки, упрямо стоящие на том то именно они владеют истиной, а их противников нужно изгнать или как минимум заставить замолчать. Мы сейчас довольно плотно работаем над правилами, которые как ограничат произвольные действия админов, так и дадут им неоспоримые права по наведению порядка, я надеюсь что это поможет. Несомненно, нужно также проводить работу по улучшению атмосферы в сообществе, повышению культуры дискуссий и доброго отношения друг к другу. Просто выгнать зачинателей раздоров с обоих сторон мы не можем, да и не даст это ничего. Без ясно выраженной позиции всего сообщества, направленной против раздоров, одними только административными мерами, как мне кажется, не удастся добиться результата. Проблема в том, что многим участникам не хочется заниматься всеми этими разборками и их отношение понятно. Ну ладно, куда деваться, нужно что-то с этим делать. MaxiMaxiMax 17:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ну вот, мне теперь тоже стыдно, что я предпочёл отсидеться.
Административными правилами, вообще говоря, можно очень много чего добиться. Проблема, как я её вижу, в том, что у вас в админах слишком много людей, у которых есть перманентные проблемы с самоконтролем (тебя я к ним не причисляю), и они начинают этими правилами махать направо и налево для доказательств своей точки зрения. Это, естественно, никому не нравится, и правила начинают обмусоливаться ради самого процесса. Конечная цель (создание нормальной атмосферы для создания энциклопедии) при этом забывается. Обзываться, оно, конечно, нехорошо, но тратить потом своё и других участников время на выяснение того, какой параграф был нарушен и те ли люди были наказаны и надо ли было их вообще наказывать и если да то согласно тому ли параграфу который был упомянут изначально, по-моему, очень глупо и бесполезно — к моменту выявления истины изначальный повод спора будет всеми окончательно забыт, и на руках будет только разъярённая толпа недовольных правилами/админами/друг другом/жизнью вообще пользователей, которые не упустят случая продолжать разборки при следующем удобном случае. Как при этом продолжать работать над энциклопедией — непонятно.
В общем, не хочу никого учить жить — очень надеюсь, что разберётесь сами. Не знаю, насколько мой совет будет полезен, но я бы порекомендовал продолжать разрабатывать правила, и в особенности механизм привлечения админов к ответственности за слишком вольное их применение (участие админа в войне правок с последующей им защитой статьи от редактирования с целью закрепления своей версии, например, вообще ни в какие ворота не лезет). Just my two roubles worth :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

«Стало понятно, отчего в английской Википедии там и тут начали появляться сбежавшие русские википедисты.»
Здорово сказано, чёрт возьми. В точку. :-))) --exile The Wrong Man 18:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and towns in Russia

You're welcome, and it looks like you have done most of the work. Nothing was left for me :) Conscious 06:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ostafievo

I reverted your edits in Ostafievo International Airport because Ostafievo is the official name and used in the official website of the company [2] as well as other English sources, documents and promotional materials.--Nixer 06:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at Talk:Ostafievo International Airport.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Привет!

Привет! As I have found out and i am sure that you are a reliable and fair person, I 'll ask: Why so many people from Russian Wikipedia go to English(American?) Wikipedia. Почему?—This unsigned comment was added by Kniaz (talk • contribs) .

Hi there, Kniaz! I cannot speak for all Russian users, of course, but it seems to me that the a good portion of Russian users who edit English Wikipedia live outside of Russia. They all probably have their own reasons for avoiding Russian Wikipedia. I, for example, having lived in the U.S. for several years, find that it is easier for me to coherently put my ideas in writing in English than in Russian. It is also more interesting for me to build up on an already existing foundation of over one million articles. English language overall is more precise and structured than Russian, which fits better with my way of thinking. I also don't like the "looks good let's leave it like that" attitude that is all too common in Russian Wikipedia. Others may have different reasons. Also, the atmosphere in Russian Wikipedia has not been very healthy recently. Continuous scandals, revert wars, content disputes presented as vandalism are, unfortunately, very common these days. It's not that we don't have the same problems in English Wikipedia, but they are harder to avoid there due to a much smaller number of articles. People who know English fairly well may find themselves to be more productive here than there.
Finally, I see that you are calling the English Wikipedia "American". That's not entirely true. There are plenty of American editors, of course, but since English is a de facto international language, it would be more accurate to regard the English edition international.
I don't know if this answers your question well, but hey, I tried :) See you around and don't forget to have fun.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have different reason. I see many lies in English Wikipedia and as the number of users here is higher, the lies spread very fast and I think even can influate the real life and what the people think. My opinion is that number of conflicts in English Wikipedia is much higher especially due the fact that many users of it came from different countries with different views. It is much easier to avoid conflicts in Russian wikipedia.--Nixer 17:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaliningrad Oblast

Hello, Ezhiki! So you would prefer I keep the towns in Category:Cities and towns in Kaliningrad Oblast for now?

Also, I noticed your corrections to the Kaliningrad Oblast articles with .ogg files I had uploaded. I have been applying your style to my .ogg inclusions in other articles now as well. Would you mind taking a look at the intros to some Polish cities with IPA to see if you can improve upon my changes? The ones I have edited so far are: Wrocław, Toruń, Gdańsk, Bydgoszcz, Olsztyn, Malbork, and Elbląg (I think that's it). Olessi 22:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Category:Cities and towns in Kaliningrad Oblast is here to stay permanently. It was created as a part of the bigger Category:Cities and towns in Russia project, when the latter cat grew to over 500 entries, and it was requested that subcats be created. Cities and towns in Kaliningrad Oblast is just one of those cats.
As for the style I introduced, it was actually meant as a quick fix so it would be possible to have the audio link but still retain {{lang-ru}}. I am not claiming it to be the final solution, and it can probably be improved somehow. You did, however, implement it exactly the same way I would have in the articles you asked me to check. The only thing is that I would separate different language versions with a semicolon instead of a comma, but again, I don't think there is a rule to that effect.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, and thanks for fixing the civic rights redirect! Olessi 22:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another mediation update

Per your request to reassign this mediation, I've listed it as unassigned. As it has been open for some time without any activity, I'm asking that the parties re-confirm that they are still interested. Please do so on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Romanization of the Russian language. Once both of you have signed, I'll find someone to take the case. Essjay Talk • Contact 01:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Essjay.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Got it =

I do agree that english is language that isn't as complicated as russian (try reading the poems, expessioly Alexander Pushkin). Thanks for pointing it out for me, but I have been to russian wikipedia only few times, since I'm not exactly russian(look at my page). And the explanation about english wikipedia instead of american I must disagree(no disrespect). You see, Wikipedia was created in USA and originnaly was english only(the first time i went on wikipedia it was said wikipedia was created due to 9/11. ?!). Good luck with you're future work and имейте хорошее здоровье(I should stop writting in paretisees). Dosvidanie dorogoy drug. P.S. Pushkin's poems are actually easier to learn and memorize, unlike other ones. kniaz march 31, 2006 10:35 pm.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ezhiki&oldid=46409091"