User talk:Elk Salmon: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:22, 15 July 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Elk Salmon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Demographics

Hi Elk Salmon,

Can you explain your removal of the phrase "and early deaths" from the demographics section of Moscow? You commented that "it has nothing to do with growth rate. it is because of too high birth rate in pre WWII." Premiture deaths is a widely accepted explaination of the falling russian population. A high birth rate in the 1930's cannot cause a population decline in the 1990's. Seabhcán 13:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how early death could affect population? Early or later people are dying. But death rate is very high because of very high birth rate in pre WWII Russia. In average there was 6-10 children in family comparing to 0-2 now. That was culture for thousand years. This part of it, not saved however. Mid 90's was turned point. Elk Salmon 21:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More people born in the 30's grow up and have more children in the 60's, who by the 90's have have had thier children. We aren't talking about absolute numbers of people dying but precentages and rates. The life expectancy of a Russian male was above 65 in the 1980's and it dropped to 55 in the 1990's. Also the birth rate dropped. The candle is being burned from both ends. Seabhcán 21:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They did grew up for sure. But they produced much less children. As I said it was usually with 5-10 children in family in pre-war and 2-4 after and 0-2 now. There was no such drop of life expectancy of. It was droped from 62 to 59. Elk Salmon 19:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-EE relation articles

Your recent edit on the Polish-Soviet War is basically vandalism. Please be more careful. This is a FA article, and the result matter has been a subject of a significant debate on the article's talk page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No man. Since views on who won this war is disputable and totally inacceptable on each sides I left only link to this statement, because all this statement is pretty big to fit into table. You, beeing Pole and administrator should not be biased. Elk Salmon 19:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin divs of Moscow

Hi, Elk Salmon! Just wanted to let you know that I reverted the Administrative divisions of Moscow back to the "city of Zelenograd" version. The reason for my revert is the fact that the article is based on OKATO, not on the information from the adm. divisions themselves. While OKATO may be occasionally inaccurate, it's the document which describes the administrative division structure of Russia. As per revision 94/2005, Moscow's okrug 45 272 is called "Город Зеленоград" (the city of Zelenograd). If it was renamed, I'll make the changes to the article as soon as OKATO is updated. Please let me know if you have further questions and thanks for trying to help out!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Juridically city is a federal status by OKATO. But for Moscow juridically it is district.Elk Salmon 20:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "juridically city is a federal status by OKATO". OKATO is a federal document, that's true. OKATO also does describe Zelenograd as a district of Moscow, not as a separate city. However, in doing that it still refers to it as "the city of Zelenograd". If Moscow legislative documents refer to the city as "Zelenogradsky district", then I am sure it is only a matter of time until OKATO catches up with that definition. I am sure that you know that while OKATO is updated quite periodically, it can still lag local legislation by several months (Perm Krai is a good example of that).

Perhaps if this matter is of great importance to you, you could mention it in the article on Zelenograd itself? I'd much rather prefer to keep the "Administrative divisions" article from the federal standpoint, if only for consistency and the ease of maintenance.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is mayor decree on symbolics of ZelAO. Moscow uses ZelAO name. But for Federals it is city. However it is often using in addresses city of zelenograd as subdivision of zelao, aling with kryukovo etc. But OKATO is just classifier of address. It is what should be on letters and official federal documents. Also. According to decree of 1963 City of Zelenograd taken status of city. It wasn't cancelled. So OKATO don't really showing federal of view. OKATO shows Zelenograd as administrative district of Moscow, but it has status of city. Elk Salmon 23:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that's not my point. My point is that the Administrative division of Moscow article is written from the OKATO standpoint. It (and the other articles in the series) is not based on the local legislation. The finer details should be in the corresponding articles (such as Zelenograd), not in the general overview. Are you OK with that? If not, why? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow version of reading OKATO is Zelenograskiy. Link. My point is let Moscow decide how to call their districts. OKATO is federal classifier... Elk Salmon 15:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree :) I merely point out that the Admin divisions series is based on OKATO (which, by the way, is not a prescriptive, but a descriptive document). Can you accept that and leave the article in its current state? I have no objections whatsoever if the other name is mentioned (and/or used as a primary name) in the article on Zelenograd or elsewhere.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is updates to law of territorial division of moscow. It is clearly says Zelenogradskiy Administrativniy Okrug Elk Salmon 00:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, I do believe you and the sources you cite. Like I also said before, the admin divs articles series is based on OKATO, not on local legislation; this is for consistency purposes only. If you are capable of producing similar series based on the information that comes directly from the federal subjects, by all means go ahead and create it. I do not have access to that kind of information, which is why I stuck with OKATO in the first place.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Russia

Please check Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board more often. Many articles could benefit from your input. Cheers, Ghirla | talk 14:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:City hall 01.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:City hall 01.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo has been taken by friend long time ago and he sent me byu email. He said me to be freehand to post it everywhere I need.Elk Salmon 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah, but did your friend actualy make it. Looks like some some kind of promo picture by the contractor, but some kind of source to verify that would be nice. --Sherool (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be it rendering it will not has any copyright. But this is photo and it was taken on MIPIM 2005 exhibition. Author said me to do everything i need with this picture. Elk Salmon 13:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah I see now, it's a photo of a scale model from an exchibition. Sorry about that, for a while there I though it was a computer generated 3D model from the architects :-O Fair enough, I have added the info to the image, please double check and see if I got it right. Please take care to include as much relevant information to images you upload in the future, it helps prevent this kind of misunderstandings. Sorry for your trouble, and thanks for clearifying the status of the image. --Sherool (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line infobox

Sorry I removed them, line articles were nicely arranaged and now they look compleately screwed up. Instead maybe careate a footer template, but no need to ruin the arrangement of the articles.--Kuban Cossack 00:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be it so nicely arranged i would not adding infobox. Current arragment is very bad. 1. Too much of tables. 2. Common figures hidden deeply in text. I moved common figures into infobox and map into normal arragment instead of bad looking popup. Elk Salmon 00:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information is, oddly enough repeated in the aritcle, so in retrospect I cannot even see the use of the infobox (especially with things like miles distance). Common figures can be added by editing the lead. The current arrangement is actually very nice as it provides all of the relevant information. Now a footer line template IS needed. --Kuban Cossack 00:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done:Template:Moscow Metro Lines--Kuban Cossack

00:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no no no. no quick list of rolling stock (i see it as important thing, btw for future - there should be articles for vagons). no route length in miles as well, while this is important for people who are not from metric world... Elk Salmon 00:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestely is that important for an average reader? There is a subsection on each article about rolling stock and the depot, no need to repeat its contents.--Kuban Cossack

01:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PSW

If you think the PSW article's outcome is questionable, what would you say of "Battle of Volodarka" article of that war? If you have patience to read its talk page discussion, feel free to share your thoughts there. Thanks, --Irpen 04:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More image license stuff

Image:2599.jpg is not properly tagged, there is no indication that the copyright holder allows anyone to do anyting with the image, better use a fair use claim on this one. --Sherool (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reverted. the source exactly says what type of license. Elk Salmon 00:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Station Square

Hi, Elk Salmon. You live in Moscow, do you not? Could you perhaps help us out with this, please? We are having hard time determining whether the news about renaming the square were a hoax. Your help would be much appreciated. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was renamed. Elk Salmon 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. I posted some additional questions at Talk:Three Station Square; it'd be great if you could answer them when you have a moment. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About polls in Wikipedia

Many Wikipedians agree that polls are to be used when there has already a great deal of discussion on the talk page. Georgia guy 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

still it will not help readers, who consider light metro as light rails. Elk Salmon 23:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you know enough about polls in Wikipedia?? Please check out whatever section of the style guidelines you think is appropriate. Georgia guy 23:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll isn't really necessary in this way - 3 users, where at least one more care about design of table... Elk Salmon 23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just wait until more users here about this. Georgia guy 23:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least one voted already with wrong comment. Number 12 is not correcting, but true phisical index number. Elk Salmon 08:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Metro

Done. Please let me know when you are in agreement so the article can be unprotected.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 00:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Tawker unprotected the article because it's been protected for a month (!). As you undoubtedly know, protected articles are not good for Wikipedia. It would be much better if you (and your opponent(s), of course) could abstain from making any dispute-related edits while consensus is being reached (what's the progress on that, by the way?). This way we wouldn't have to keep the article in a semi-permanently protected condition, allowing other people to work on it as well. If the revert wars resume in full power again, I will, of course, re-protect the article. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, it's very far away from any consensus. I'm trying to reach it from several sides. But still some people reject any changes and hardly protecting old version, which is, obviously, not accurate. We keep talking. Elk Salmon 19:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Metro lines table

Please create what you think is the most logical version of the Moscow Metro lines table at User:Elk Salmon/Moscow Metro Lines table. Georgia guy 19:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but for what? there is metro talk page. so better to have it there... Elk Salmon 21:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Sources

Why did you remove these sources from the Moscow article? And do you have another alternative to having links to translation pages? I see from your userpage that you're fluent in Russian, but not everyone is. As this is the English Wikipedia, it is preferable to use sources in English, or at the very best find English translations of sources. joturn e r 16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joturner, please read carefuly my comment. This table is on en wiki Moscow Metro page. This is first. Second. Please do not post links to online translators, based on systrans because they significantly changing meaning of words. You can use only Russian translator.ru. But post short link near of original link in the reference. Elk Salmon 11:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a table on Moscow Metro page, but that's not a reliable source. We can't cite information from another Wikipedia article. Second, the (as I said, approximate) translation provides enough information to support the claim made in the article. I don't know what Russian translator.ru is and it doesn't appear to be a working website.

Also, you asked (albeit in an edit summary) whether I'm going to add references to every statement in the article. No, I'm not, but is that a problem? Adding references adds credibility to the article. Adding references to every statement would be wonderful (although also quite a bit of work). Removing valid references, on the other hand, serves no purpose. joturn e r 16:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chechnya

Please, do not go over board over the external links there. Though I agree that Kavkaz Center is a website glorifying terrorism (perhaps worth an article on its own), putting Prague Watchdog and yes, Chechen Press (the mouthpiece of the Umarov government) in the same Al Qaeda bag, is counterproductive to the point you want to make. I am sure we are actually on the same wave length on this issue, so let's both keep up the good work.--Pan Gerwazy 20:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal Case

I opened a Mediation Cabal case regarding the issue over the sources in the Moscow article. Contribute to the discussion at your leisure. joturn e r 23:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept or reject the comprimise I offered on the cabal case page. joturn e r 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now in mediation, so you could join the discussion on forming the consensus, to prevent future disagreements about the issue. CP/M 04:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; please join on the discussion, so this issue can be settled quickly. joturn e r 21:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

later, i have no time now for long discussions. on a days. Elk Salmon 21:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three-Revert Rule

I know you're aware of the three-revert rule, but I shall remind you. Regarding Moscow Metro:

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. joturn e r 01:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's allowed to revert vandalism endless number of times. So your note is useless. Elk Salmon 07:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Moscow

Please vote to save the gallery: Talk:Moscow--Nixer 20:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Three-Revert Rule Again

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Final warning, Elk. Please stop. -- joturn e r 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sasha already made 3 reverts today to old edit. While me was doing reverts to new edits, not to old. And please - stop using my talk page. Use MM talk page. Elk Salmon 23:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation for Moscow Metro

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee in regard to the article Moscow Metro. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the mediation, and indicate an agreement to mediate within seven days. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Moscow Metro, and indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation.

-- joturn e r 05:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 140: / Line 140: @@
 Final warning, Elk. Please stop. -- [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Joturner|r]] 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)<br clear=all>
 Sasha already made 3 reverts today to '''old''' edit. While me was doing reverts to new edits, not to old. And please - stop using my talk page. Use MM talk page. [[User:Elk Salmon|Elk Salmon]] 23:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
+== Request for Mediation for [[Moscow Metro]] ==
+A [[WP:RFM|request for mediation]] has been filed with the [[WP:MC|Mediation Committee]] in regard to the article Moscow Metro. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the mediation, and indicate an agreement to mediate within seven days. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Moscow Metro]], and indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to [[Wikipedia:Mediation]].
+-- [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Joturner|r]] 05:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)