User talk:Greyhood/Archive 2008-2010

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

Welcome![edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Greyhood, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


hey[edit]

i give u this barnstars:


The Socratic Barnstar
For your intelligent comments on discussion pages ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Russian Barnstar of National Merit  
For your contribution in russia-related articles.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I that's nice! Thank you very much! Greyhood (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of countries[edit]

Congratulations for the considerable work done on this template. Keep up the good work! 76.69.63.160 (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current hidden sections makes it more difficult to access information. I think it looked better before with all data visible. 76.65.20.53 (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually I agree with you. It was Sardanaphalus's idea to change the template. If you want to change it back, better discuss it on the template's talk page. Greyhood (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gas by countrys[edit]

Can you help me with my problem there? It is written down on the discussion page there! would be nice, thanks. 84.190.207.5 (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Kilon[reply]

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Lists of countries[edit]

Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of countries by number of airports[edit]

The article List of countries by number of airports has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be an indiscriminate list of facts with no clear encyclopedic purpose.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of countries by number of airports[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of countries by number of airports, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by number of airports. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. MilborneOne (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian artists category[edit]

I Have noticed that you have added many (probably all) articled from the Category:Russian painters directly into the category Category:Russian artists. Category:Russian painters is already a subcategory of Category:Russian artists the edits IMHO just make the Category:Russian artists almost unmanageable without adding values to the users Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done it primarily to facilitate my work on List of Russian artists, however I thought it would do no harm. Perhaps I don't understand the Wikipedian policy on categories qood enough. As for the managability, look up Category:American artists or Category:British artists, they also have much stuff there. Also, personally I find it might be of some use to have a combined list of artists before your eyes. Greyhood (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matryoshka[edit]

You revert my edits and then you write: "rm "incorrect" about English babushka term; matryoshka IS NOT derived from babushka". Listen, no-one says that matryoshka is derived from babushka (or the other way around). What gave you the impression that my edit says or implies that matryoshka and babushka are somehow etymologically related terms? I never said that at all. In fact, I agree with you that they are separate, unrelated words. So why revert my edits? See also the Talk page of the matryoshka page. The Wikipedia is not the place to tell people "this word is wrong, that word is correct". Neither word is more correct than the other -- both words are used in different parts of the world. -- leuce (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian writers[edit]

Hi there, Greyhood! Could you please explain why you removed the red links from the list of Russian writers?? I've done lots of typing to create that list, so that other Wikipedians could fill in the remaining blanks (meaning the red links). KNewman (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this template:
And I intend to fill it exclusively with high quality lists, like the already created and polished List of Russian inventors and List of Russian artists, and most of leaders-related lists. Obviously, red links are out of place in such lists, except the list of Russian rulers and alike, where all rulers should be listed in any case. At the same time the listing of some minor writers without articles on them is of virtually no use to readers. And remember there are much much much more readers than editors, and the articles are created primarily for readers, not editors. Greyhood (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power in International Relations Wikiproject[edit]

Hi, fellow, what about joining the Power in International Relations Wikiproject? All you got to do is go to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Power_in_international_relations

And list yourself according to the instructions.

BTW, my intuition tells me that you are Russian...am I correct? :) CEBR (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed your offer, thank you. However, as you see, I'm more interested in creating lists of countries and people, than international relations, so perhaps I wouldn't be very valuable participant of that project. And yes, I am Russian. Greyhood (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I can see your lists, they're very nice...Well, I suppose you'd be very valuable to the project, even if it is not your priority, fellow. ;) CEBR (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian artists[edit]

Re this edit summary: It isn't about "rights' per se. It's about the overuse of non-free images. In particular, our policy on this asks us to use as little non-free content as possible. Further, the use of non-free content in galleries and/or tables is not supported, per WP:NFG. This articles shows up on this report which is a daily run showing articles with excessive fair use content on them. There are already 35 fair use images on this article, all of which are used in the tables on this page. Furthermore, based on another 100+ artists potentially being added to this page, the final total will probably be in excess of 70 fair use images. This is highly excessive use of fair use images and violates our policies and guidelines. I am restoring the tag until the problem is resolved. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rating of countries by prominence[edit]

I like your user page but maybe could you update it ! See this page List of statistically superlative countries. China is n°1 in many others domains. --Zhonghuo (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your approval of my page. Yes, maybe I'll update it, however the creation of the present version took rather long time a year ago, and I don't know when I'll have the same amount of free time to make a revision. By the way, it was me who created most of the List of statistically superlative countries.Greyhood (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wow that's a great work ! maybe i will help you doing the 2009 version --Zhonghuo (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification re. Benois and Nicholas[edit]

Thank you for correcting my error ([1]). Indeed, after reading three pages on Benois' draft presented at the 1890 competition I completely missed the point that his proposal was trashed. There were 12 competition proposals, and none of them was approved; Vladimir Nicholas delivered his proposal before the competition was announced, and was awarded the job. Benois, however, did rebuild the Court Cappella (Придворная певческая капелла) but it's a whole different story. Sources: Lisovsky, Vladimir (2006) (in Russian). Leonty Benua i peterburgskaya shkola ("Леонтий Бенуа и петербургская школа художников-архитекторов"). Saint Petersburg: Kolo. ISBN 5-901841-443 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. pp. 181-184. Regards, NVO (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of countries by number of heliports[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of countries by number of heliports, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by number of heliports. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of Russians[edit]

Someone propesed this tempalte for deletion. Is there vindication for something like this?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 12:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was some IP user who apparantly doesn't understand the rules of Wikipedia clearly. He should first have started a discussion on the template's talk page, and only then, if necessary, discuss it's deletion. And in fact, there are no reasons for deletion at all. Only the design and the proper use of this template may be discussed. See the corresponding talk page, I've explained everything there. Greyhood (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it would be nice if you vote or leave a comment on that talk. Greyhood (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File permission problem with File:Urvantsev.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Urvantsev.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

citations needed[edit]

Why did you take out all the cn tags when you added your Blinov ref? Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I thought it's enough to provide citations. Do you mean that the better sources are needed, or just some specific text from the sources? Greyhood (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that in this diff you also removed all the tags not related to Blinov. Dicklyon (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I haven't noticed the tags below. I just have restored your edits.Greyhood (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Vasily_Poyarkov2.gif[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Vasily_Poyarkov2.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Russian Barnstar of National Merit  
For your massively important work on Russia-related subjects, including your numerous contributions to the high-profile article Russia. Offliner (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
%) Thank you very much! %) Greyhood (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're awesome[edit]

I love the work you've done with the stat superlative article. There should be a way to standardize entries. Do keep it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.91 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I like that article too. Thanks! Greyhood (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Need help with Russian references[edit]

Hello, could you please help me to fix the article Vladimir_Miklyukov, he is a living Russian mathematician. There are several references in Russian on that page, that only a Russian speaker can verify. I've been asking for help for a little while, but the page still looks awful (bunch of tags about neutrality, autobiographical content, etc. -- Miklyukov is my father and I wrote that article). The was a discussion about it on my talk page User_talk:SobakaKachalova. Thank you very much. --69.119.214.106 (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Greyhood (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non Free Images in your User Space[edit]

Hey there Greyhood, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Greyhood/Timeline of Russian inventions. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of images removed today here

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File copyright problem with File:Tula gingerbread.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Tula gingerbread.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILYsock(TALK) 02:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Could you be so kind as to explain why do you call my edits "test edits", and where was any vandalism or any other wrongdoing in these edits? Greyhood (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greyhood... my bad, I was reviewing articles and clicked the wrong one. I've reverted my edit (which brings back your original edit). No, there was nothing objectionable there! Sorry!

KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 20:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just have in mind that it might be a simple mistake. Greyhood (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Historic inventions[edit]

I think you might be a bit confused regarding the meaning of 'historic.' Historic means outstanding in regards to the whole of history, not just part of history. A historic invention is one that is 'particularly important or significant' as the opening line says. The vast majority of inventions you've added are VERY minor developments and do not belong in this list. For example, icebreaker would make this list, but you've got numerous different versions. Russian salad is not an invention, its a recipe. The peaked cap is not an invention, its fashion. I'd suggest you try again and only enter the most important or significant items, otherwise you'll be facing wholesale deletion. Mdw0 (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I don't mind if some minor developments, like Russian salad, are deleted from the list. However in most cases it is a matter of personal opinion whether invention is minor or major. For me, most of inventions I have added are rather significant, and quite a number of other inventions already on the list are not. Peaked cap is a part of military uniform widely used internationally, it is note just fashion. Regarding icebreaker, there were different steps in its development, just as with some othere technologies on the list. Koch was the first sailing ship puprposely designed to sail in the polar waters. Modern icebreaker was invented in 1864. The first nuclear icebreaker was also the first nuclear powered surface ship. This is all quite significant, isn't it? Greyhood (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just have deleted Russian salad myself. Further discussion is welcomed here or on the article's talk page. Greyhood (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed on that discussion page, personal opinion means nothing, and unless you can find a reference which clearly states the invention is historic in terms of all other inventions in history then its at risk of deletion. You are starting to understand the conundrum of this list, which is part of its fascination. What pre-cursors are important? What makes a good list? Is a peaked cap more important than just a cap? Is its development really significant and historic or is it merely notable? What constitutes an invention? Is an item that is the same as a previous one except for a different method of power really different enough to make such a list? If it was just my opinion I'd say 'rather significant' or 'quite significant' is not enough. To be on the list you would need to be confident that the item ranks among the most significant technological breakthroughs in history, and for me, peaked cap doesnt make that list by a long way. The first icebreaker and first nuclear power would make the list, not nuclear icebreaker as that is a second level of importance and would not. However I am something of a purist in this regard, because I would say there are a lot of items here that should be deleted. Mdw0 (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Well, I do think that I understand you quite well regarding the point of this list. Of course, the bulk of it should consist of important precursors of modern technology. But what about the most modern inventions, that are on the very top of the technological development? Do you know that the modern nuclear icebreakers are the only ships capable of operating in all ocean waters year round, and they were the first surface ships to reach the North Pole breaking through the Arctic ice? Isn't the invention of the nuclear icebreaker obviously of very much historic significance? Regarding the peaked cap, it is not just one of the few very widespread types of modern military hats. It forms an important part of historic technology sequence, since it was also a direct precursor to the sailor cap (which is certainly not a "fashion", but a very useful thing for sailors in the sea).Greyhood (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can say here that you think the peaked cap is among the most significant technological breakthroughs in history then leave it in. Otherwise, it shouldnt be on the list. Along with a lot of other items that are merely notable. As for the nuclear icebreaker, as I said, the icebreaker and nuclear power are the important inventions. In fact the nuclear icebreaker is a classic case of innovation rather than invention. If you have icebreakers and you have nuclear power its pretty obvious that the two should go together, its just a matter of working out how to do it. The nuclear icebreaker is a subsequent development from those other inventions and is secondary compared to the icebreaker and nuclear power. As a breakthrough its of less significance than those others and I would consider it borderline as to making the list. Anything less significant than the nuclear icebreaker really shouldnt be there. Mdw0 (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Nuclear icebreakers, especially those from the later Arktika class, are something more than a mere combination of icebreaker and nuclear power. There are many additional features... Now I'll remove some minor inventions that don't go along the proper lines we have discussed. Greyhood (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See how removing them makes the important inventions stand out? Mdw0 (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Yes, but from the fact that other editors started reverting some of my reverts, it is seen that much depends on personal opinion of what is important and what is not... Greyhood (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit of that in this article, primarily because it has set itself up as an exclusive list, with stricter rules than normal Wikipedia sites. dexactly what those rules are hasnt been adequately defined. Techncially you need to have references which specifically claim historical significance, but such specific referencing is quite rare, so people go on their opinion. Mdw0 (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Moon[edit]

The Minor Barnstar
For improving a featured article and in the process making it less US-centric, please have this small barnstar. That was a good pick-up. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, thanks! Greyhood (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Power source[edit]

The source only mentioned "political superpower" in the title and nowhere in the text thus I do not believe it is a sufficient source that describes Brazil as a full-fledged superpower. What do you think? Nirvana888 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems the source mentions political superpower only in the title and there is no proper description of a Brazil as a full-fledged superpower. But as far as I remember we had already discussed the sources for Brazil on the article's talk page some time ago, and it seems that we agreed (or, at least, nobody strongly objected) that while the inclusion of a country into the list should be based on the sources that directly discuss it as a full-fledged superpower, some additional relevant sources also may be provided. This source just hints on the political superpowerdom and is relevant mainly in the aspect of potential superpower economy, which still is worth mention in the section, even though it is not the source which provides the basis for inclusion. The economic superpower concept is not equal but closely related to the concept of 'full-fledged' superpower, If you want to reconsider this former consensus on additional sources and raise the level of requirements for them, likely I won't make any further objections, but in that case perhaps some other sources in other sections should also be removed. And I am not sure if removing of the "non-direct" but closely relevant sources would really improve the article from its present quite good state IMO. Greyhood (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your constructive response. I am glad you see my point that it is not exactly sufficient. I will leave the article as it is currently until I can find better sources for Brazil. Indeed, I did not strongly oppose an entry of Brazil after you had patiently argued for a paragraph in the talk page. I maintain that ideally all sources should be academic and should directly discuss a country's potential of being a potential superpower. Now obviously the article is far from ideal; while it does have some reliable academic sources, many unreliable media sources remain which I am attempting to remove. I would encourage you to help me vet sources for their reliability. As you can see, an IP editor continues to insist inserting unreliable sources like Google video. Nirvana888 (talk)
Well, I believe that Power source falls somewhere between the academic sources and media sources. The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research and Power himself seem to be "academic", but the article looks like a media article. It may be removed on the basis of discussing the economic superpower rather than full-fledged, except for the title. But then this line remains unillustrated: Brazil is often called an economic superpower[24][25][26], either present or future, and many experts and journalists compare Brazil with the other potential superpowers of BRIC group. The other sources provided for this line are very reliable, and I think it is worth leaving. The illustration of the point by Power's words hardly does any harm. Greyhood (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance architecture[edit]

I removed most of your additions, leaving only corrections and a little more info, because they made the section on Russia twice as long as all the other brief summaries. I have placed the entire content of that section on the page talk page of Russian architecture. That article could really use your ministrations, since the relevant section there lacks things as basic as the names of the most important architects. I didn't drop your info straight into the article, because the two will need to be married, which I'm sure you can organize better than I would.

I have made a "main page" link to Russian architecture at the top of the relevant section on the Renaissance architecture page. Amandajm (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, later I'll try to expand some of the relevant sections in the Russian architecture article, or make a separate article about Renaissance architecture in Russia. Greyhood (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

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

List of Russian language novelists[edit]

Hi, I have started filling in that table a little bit.
If you can doublecheck my additions — make sure I picked the best book(s) — then that would be good.
Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question out of curiosity[edit]

Hello. Since you have been most associated with the List of statistically superlative countries, I have this question out of curiosity. Recently there has been a massive surge in page view stats of this article, I just wanted to know what has caused it? It is just a technical curiosity on my part. Thanks in advance.--Irooniqermez (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's most likely a result of some big website mentioning the link. Offliner (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


List of Russian artists[edit]

  • Thank you, I had reviewed and have so far only one question: on my computer in the new list all tables have a different width. For example, tables "T" and "O" is considerably narrower than the "C" and "M". At the same time in the old list all tables have the same width. I could not understand why. Please advice. Leningradartist (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the answer on your talk page. Greyhood (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Greyhood! I had added to list about 50 artists and expect to increase it up to 80-100. I think your idea plus our joint efforts have a good result. How do you feel about the proposal to continue our collaboration in creating new lists of Russian artists for Russian and English Wikipedia? For example, to create on the same scheme similar list for Russian Wikipedia? Leningradartist (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that may be a nice idea. I'm not active on the Russian Wikipedia currently, but of course, you feel free to add a similar list of Leningrad artists to the Russian wiki. Perhaps you may even translate the List of Russian artists and add it into the Russian wiki. The existence of the general gallery might help to justify the existence of the specific Leningrad gallery, if there would be such need. Anyway, I'm not interested in the translation right now, but if you start doing the job yourself I'll try to watch over your work and help with formatting the tables and other technical issues. Greyhood (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation industry[edit]

I'm currently working on User:Offliner/Aviation industry of Russia. It's one of the industry sector articles, and when it's completed, I'll insert a summary of to Economy of Russia. If you're interested, we could work on it together. The reason it's still in userspace is that I want it to look good before it goes to DYK. At the moment I'm a bit overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the article subject, so any help and ideas would be welcome. Offliner (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russia GA reassessment[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Russia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Philipmj24 (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provide your verifed facts on 12th versing 6th economy[edit]

Because you have removed the edits from 6th to 12th you have provided no sources. You have to have outside sources that promote that argument but you have listed nothing. Sources say Russia is 6th largest economy[2][3] but

The 6th largest economy argument was long on the article without dispute until Unionin[4] September 10th erased without any consenses to anyone, in fact never onced used the discussions page on any subject matter on Russia before, which is article abuse as the argument was originally decided back in January that we leave Russia as 6th economy.

Do you have any source not using Wikipedia's GDP page over other article sources to state other wise that Russia is not 6th largest economy? Provide the sources before changing over as this will create edit conflicts.--Globalstatus (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first of your sources does not specify it, but it tells about being 6th largest in terms of GDP PPP, not nominal GDP. Please, do some research and understand the difference between GDP PPP and nominal GDP. In 2009 Russia was 12th or 11th economy in terms of nominal GDP, but 6th or 7th in terms of GDP PPP. Look up the corresponding lists, List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by GDP (PPP). Greyhood (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really well where was that argument 5 months ago with everybody was discussing it? YOu happened to noticed this now and decide in your opinion? Prehaps you have an source outside Wikipedia to verify that information.
Second erasing superpower off the map? Really what makes you do this? You have now created an edit war on this issue, this has been discussed and discussed over again last few years on here. I do not like how you have edited your actions on this page to assume you can control the page as it is all your content for example, it is not. I am filing a complaint for disrupting the article page as this is what you are trying to do.--Globalstatus (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not abuse the Russia's article page as Russia as a superpower, removing all content is completely abuse, here's your facts[edit]

Russia is superpower; it is a state with a leading position in the international system which has the ability to influence events globally and its own interests by projecting its power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests.

Russia for fills the criteria of a superpower for its resources measured by its four axes of power: massive military, economic power, political power, and cultural (and the ability to use soft and hard power).Russia has as a massive political community that occupies a continental-sized landmass, has a sizable population (relative at least to other major powers); a super ordinate economic capacity, including ample indigenous supplies of food and natural resources; has a high degree of non-dependence on an international intercourse; and, most importantly has a well-developed nuclear capacity (in fact the worlds largest).

Russia is able to conduct a global strategy as a superpower including of having the ability to destroy the world (in fact more than the United States can); can command vast economic potential and world influence; and to present a universal ideology as Russia can project its power, soft and hard, globally on a world wide scale.

Russia remains a global Superpower according to a lot sources such as here are several sources claiming Russia is superpower (not regional): "Russia is a Superpower CNN", US Senators telling the truth - CNN Wolf interview: March 2009[5] and "Washington Acknowledges Russia as a Superpower" - Kommersant News 2007 - Daniel Fried, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs[6] and "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament" - Project-Syndicate News By Sergei Karaganov April 29, 2010[7] and "Azerbaijanis, Armenians can be good neighbors" (Superpower Neighbor Russia) News Az March 2, 2010 by Akper Hasanov[8] and "Perspective of Karabakh conflict settlement unreal in current conditions" - News 1 June 2010[9] and "Venezuela's Hugo Chavez recognizes independence of breakaway Georgia republics", Russia is a Superpower - Los Angeles Times by September 11, 2009 editor Megan K. Stack[10] and "The dangers of nuclear disarmament" - TODAY’S ZAMAN News by Sergei Karaganov May 1, 2010[11] and "Sergei Karaganov: Weapons that save us from ourselves" - Scotsman News: May 5, 2010[12] and "Kyrgyzstan conflict" Right after the uprising, on Wednesday, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir - in a tug-of-war between the two rival superpowers- Sunday's Zaman by Dogu Ergil April 17, 2010 ERGIL[13] and "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament" - Saint Petersburg Times By Sergei Karaganov May 4, 2010[14] and "PM's visit underlines rising Indian interest in Ibsa", Bric- Business Standard News; Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi April 16, 2010[15] “Is Russia Warming Up For A New Cold War” by Brian Mciver Oct 20, 2008[16] and “Medvedev or Putin: Who Holds Real Power in Russia” Voa News By Anya Ardayeva October 16, 2008[17] and “A multipolar world with multiple scenario - The rise of China, the reborn of Russia as a superpower” Agora Vox News: January 2010[18] and “The Cold Peace” Spiegel News by By Ralf Beste Sept 9, 2009[19] and “Russia and the West: The Cold Peace” – Free Internet Press - Sept 1, 2008[20] and “Running out of time” - Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM December 2009[21] and “CHAVEZ PREDICTS THE END OF AMERICA” Moscow University - International News Analysis Today - September 17, 2009[22] and “Russia indeed a superpower, says diplomat” – Derschos News by Equipo Nizkor Aug 30, 2009[23] and “Russia to Aust: Don't dump uranium deal - AAP News September2, 2008[24] and “Which country's going to be the next superpower” September 2008[25] and “Russia pilots proud of flights to foreign shores” - The Associated Press By DAVID NOWAK: “Rather than hostile to the West, the pilots seemed more keen that Russia be taken seriously as a military superpower once again”[26].

There's more plenty more sources --Globalstatus (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before resorting to such rush actions like filling a complaints and embarassing yourself, please make sure that you are familiar with the basic notions in economy, such as the distinction between nominal GDP and GDP PPP. As for the superpower status, I was on vacation when the issue was discussed there, and I'd rather not meddle into this issue if not for the GA reassesment proposal. Personally I'm mostly indifferent to the issue whether to call Russia a superpower or not, but as a long-term editor of articles superpower and potential superpowers I can tell to you that at present even the inclusion of Russia into potential superpowers list was not very easy feat. And finally, you should understand that currently there is no academic consensus on designating Russia as superpower, the overall majority of Anglophone scholars don't support it. As far as I know, there are few academic works that support the idea of Russia as a future superpower, and hardly any works that count Russia to be superpower at present. Short newspaper articles where the word superpower just makes the better title, random flattering phrases like that from Netanyahu or some U. S. senators are not a good ground for designating Russia as superpower. Also, there are very specific definitions of the notion superpower, and many people simply mix it with the notion of great power, so the fact that some important people called Russia a superpower doesn't mean anything, until either these people represent a clear majority view or some good academic articles or books specifically address this question and resolve it positively. Greyhood (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's continue this discussion on Russia talk page, I'll make a new section. Greyhood (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are creating a huge problem for the Russian article[edit]

You have failed to respond vice verse to the questions I asked you. You assume you can write that you have all the knowledge here and that is not going to happen. Provide some acedamic sources that Russia is not a superpower then. Come on, show me how smart you are then? I want to see how you know this subject inside out.--Globalstatus (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have better ways to spend my time than immediately responding to your overlarge, overemotional and overquestioned comments. Especially given the fact that you have deleted my own very important comment by your posting. I think now it is quite clear that the consensus is against the inclusion of the superpower speculations in the intro, and it is more appropriate to say that it is rather you than me creating problems (in fact there are no problems, just a common process of editing somewhat complicated by your novice attitude to Wikipedia). At the same time, the superpower status line has been included into the Foreign relations section, and you may try and make some improvements to this specific paragraph devoted to the Russia's status. Greyhood (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now there is something on your 7 points, though this is quite a pointless discussion given the present consensus on Russia's talk page. Bear in mind, please, that I'm not arguing about whether Russia is superpower or not, I'm arguing with the quality of some presented sources and the idea of inserting the current superpower speculations into the introduction of Russia.
1) I don't think there is any real need for me to answer your countless questions about the anglophone schoolars being exeptional or about using the academic sources. If you were a more experienced editor you'd know that English language sources are preferred over non-English ones, and the academic sources are preferred over non-academic, including media sources. The latter of course may be used too, but there are such sensitive situations when we should use them with a great caution and try to provide academic sources instead of media.
2) I've shown the drawbacks of the presented sources that support the idea of Russia being a superpower. You still haven't provided any academic sources, that use the word superpower not only in the title, as well specifically and exclusively discuss the question of Russia's current superpowerdom and resolves it positively. There are, however, sources that qualify to these conditions except that they resolve the question negatively. You list these sources yourself under your point 2) ;)
3) The words of politicians don't matter very much anyway, pure flattering or not. On one hand, the term superpower was originally invented and developed by academic scholars, and they have the first say in the matter. On the other hand there are too few political claims that Russia is a superpower to regard that it is a universal opinion.
4), 6) My edits of other articles have no relation to the present discussion. Especially some pure technical edits that you for some reason gave a link to, and the edits of list articles that just provide easy way to other articles and don't need references very much.
5) I've already indicated that an interview with a Russian diplomat clearly mixes superpower with great power, since he called Russia a superpower for centuries while it is only post 1945 concept. The Azerbaijani articles mix superpower and regional power. As for the Russia's being a great power, look up the sources in the great power article. By the way, being great power doesn't contradict being a superpower, since any superpower should have all the qualities of great power first.
7) It matters what is written in an article, not in its title. All media titles tend to be sensationalized.
Academic books talk about Russia as a future superpower or reinstating the superpower status, not present. If you have other books, provide a link to them.
Being superpower in military or energy respect is not enough, since there is also cultural and economic dimension.
See p. 5 about the misuse of the word superpower.
Some of the articles just reports that Netanyahu or other persons called Russia a superpower. Such sources are valuable mainly for reporting the power status speculations, not so for strict and academic proving that Russia qualifies to all the criteria of being a superpower. And where does Fareed Zakaria call Russia a superpower? Up to 2008 at least he was arguing against Russia being even a potential superpower.
I don't think we really should continue this discussion, since even if you present some really good academic sources it is quite clear that the majority opinion of both scholars and common people (those who can distinguish superpower and great power) is very far from universal recognition of Russia as superpower. A country should win in a world war, or for decades excercise a principal influence on the world's history in order to be recognised as a superpower. Not enough time has passed since the recent resurgance of Russia, and we have only speculations and debates rather than well established and commonly accepted views, and there is no need to push this speculations too hard. Intro of the good article has not enough place to cover the matter correctly, and the articles superpower and potential superpowers should be modified first in order to prevent Russia's intro look contradictory, silly or clumsy nationalistic. Greyhood (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not delete any content if I did it was a mistake. First as I asked before if you are saying Russia is a great power than provide the acedemic sources vise versa? Because you are only commenting then you have nothing more than comments and the consensus is against the inclusion of the superpower speculations in the intro was started by you remember you deleted it entirely yesterday with your own intro and I disgreed. Second to make some improvements to the specific paragraph devoted to the Russia's status well that looks like you did that but I don't agree with it on the intro content and you also decided to also knock the energy superpower section as well, you didn't consenses that either.

Then you are telling people Russia is a great power but you haven't provided any sources to that argument (not a time table on Great Powers). You go on saying the community believes Russia is a great power than where is it, what people then please? Can I provide that communities inputs for viewing? Why can't you simply provide some anything sources otherwise then? You repeatedly talk about acedemic sources and you disapprove of Steven Rosefielde[27]Russia in the 21st Century The Prodigal Superpower saying it is a prediction; well how about we simply go on Superpowers and erase this outdated article[28] since it is outdated because that doesn't fit the critera anymore. I mean you take is so personally that Russia is a great power than maybe fix the Superpowers article too.

You also said these Academic books that talk about Russia as a future superpower or reinstating the superpower status, not present? If this is what you are saying then where is the sources then?

Being a superpower in military or energy respect is not enough, since there is also cultural and economic dimension. So why does the media say otherwise military superpower is a matter of superpower status and why does the Obama adminstration refer Russia as a superpower or Secretary of Defence Robert Gates?

If your saying the articles superpower and potential superpowers should be modified first in order to prevent Russia's intro look contradictory, silly or clumsy nationalistic, well it seems to me on superpower and potential superpowers you have blocked sources on those articles as well too. Making it a railroad block to even add anything of the word superpower or calling Russia a superpower on adding sources of updating the content.

You said since even if you present some really good academic sources it is quite clear that the majority opinion of both scholars and common people (those who can distinguish superpower and great power) is very far from universal recognition of Russia as superpower. Wow a very far from universal recognition of Russia as superpower? I think you maybe trying to make law or rules that simply has not foundation of facts on that comment. I disagree with you 110% here unless you have some facts I could read about it to say this is true.

Not enough time has passed since the recent resurgance of Russia, and we have only speculations and debates rather than well established and commonly accepted views, and there is no need to push this speculations too hard. If there is not enough time to say Russia has arisen to a superpower in the last recent years then why is the average article saying superpower? If you Google 100 new articles and those articles say Russia is a superpower and articles that say Russia is a great power, what are you going to based that on great power or emerging or potential superpower. If the articles are 40% or 50% or 60% saying Russia is becoming a superpower or has superpower status or is emerging, does that mean leave it as a great power? If you say there is no acedemic sources then what makes it a power anything at all then? In the USA people look as the media over radio as the superpower of information that says it why makes these sources I have provided worthless?

A country should win in a world war, or for decades excercise a principal influence on the world's history in order to be recognised as a superpower. Well you said a superpower military doesn't mean a country is a superpower so that doesn't make sense. So are you going to tell China can't be a superpower unless they have decades of excercise principal influence on the world's history to be a superpower? Where did this information come from to say a country needs decades of influence to become a superpower?

Lastly your mairly commenting here without sources even media sources and you say you don't have time to discuss but your are modifying the article faster than an SR-71. Within 15 hours you have changed the intro 4 times on a barely discussed issue on the discussion page when I have to read the content even the sources (yet no sources have been provided). You also denounced every source that says Russia is superpower, not one you have liked and on saying Russia it is a great power but you did not send me not one source that says Russia is I can read from you otherwise not (not a great powers time table). At what point does this argument say on the sources collected that the weight has pull for the intro? You have also some important people you have declared Russia as a superpower; not cartoon characters or seame street characters but you have said flattering people (I guess Obama is a falltering politican) & dilopmats don't count and you also doesn't even review more current articles I provided on the discussions page also but you choose to modify the intro regardless. Why do you think news organizations or journalist refer Russia as a superpower on the topics or headlines, why do you suppose they use those terms over and over again? I mean should I just contact The Middle East Media Research Institute[29] or why Washington announces Russia as a Superpower 2007 [30] The chief speaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried that he is wrong or misleading the public? I mean why do them write it for? I mean should I call all these news organizations up and say they are misleading the public and tell these media or research organizations that they should not be calling Russia a superpower. Look at these titles and article below and tell me I am wrong here? WHy do you suppose they write these articles? "Why isn't anyone taking Kyrgyzstan's calls"; Foreign Policy By Steve LeVine Friday, June 18, 2010 [31] or "Georgia: An Insecure Foothold for the United States" - The Globalist - Martin Sieff June 02, 2010 [32] or "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament by Sergei Karaganov" - Project-Syndicate News April 4, 2010 [33] or "Azerbaijanis, Armenians can be good neighbors" (Superpower Neighbor Russia) News Az - March 2, 2010 by Akper Hasanov [34] or "Perspective of Karabakh conflict settlement unreal in current conditions" - News Az - June 2010 by Vafa Guluzade[35] or "The dangers of nuclear disarmament" - TODAY’S ZAMAN News May 1, 2010 by Sergei Karaganov[36] or "Sergei Karaganov: Weapons that save us from ourselves" - Scotsman News: 05 May 2010 Sergei Karaganov [37] or "Obama restricts America’s use of nuclear arms" -San Diego Conservative Examiner by Robert Rische April 6, 2010 [examiner. com ] or "Right after the uprising" - Sunday's Zaman April 17, 2010 by Dogu Ergil Kyrgyzstan conflict [38] or "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament" - Saint Petersburg Times By Sergei Karaganov May 4, 2010[39] or "PM's visit underlines rising Indian interest in Ibsa", Bric - Business Standard News; Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi April 16, 2010[40] or "Russia’s mission is Eurasian integration" - RIA Novosti by Xing Guangcheng August 8, 2010[41] or "Guam Back to Life" - RIA Novostiby by Bogdan Tsirdya August 3, 2010[42] or "Armenian base part of Russia's quest for 'superpower' status" - News.Az By Leyla Tagiyeva August 30, 2010[43] or Boost for nonproliferation - The Japan Times April 10, 2010[44] or "Syria asks Russia to lean on Israel" - Asia Times Online By Sami Moubayed May 14, 2010[45] --Globalstatus (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Globalstatus, I have no intent to present any sources that prove Russia is not a superpower. It is not my aim here to prove that Russia is superpower or isn't superpower. My aim is to improve the quality of an article and to give any information about Russia a proper place and proper attention. So far there are few to none good sources supporting Russia's superpower status, and the claim is heavily debated by other sources. There are no academic articles or books that discuss the question specifically and assert that Russia is already a superpower, not a reinstating or future superpower. The existing sources are now covered in the foreign relations section and all other editors who commented on this dispute agreed that this is better, or at least not intervened. And also, it was not me who removed the superpower line from intro yesterday, but Italiano111. As for the energy superpower, I just have removed two excessive sources (three is enough, and the article's size needs to be reduced) and excessive attribute largest, which is stylistically bad in the context.
I've shown you where to find sources talking about Russia being a great power. The fact that you don't understand a basic thing that Russia should necessarily be great power in order to be superpower just proves that you are extremely amateur in the matter of international relations. It is just as ridiculous as the fact that you are unaware of the distinction between nominal GDP and real GDP and you delete info on the nominal because you do not understand it and don't like it. Your recent actions have added to the problem of questioning the GA status of Russia article, and it is more important thing to care about than inserting power status speculations into the intro. You are not very good in English, your style of formatting your comments is also rather poor, your posts are unnecessarily large and your deleting of others' comments is a very, very bad thing. It is not very easy to interact with you, and I won't do it no more if i can help it. Go to superpower article and try insert your stuff, I'll not engage in the discussions there. If you are successful there, and when the current problems with Russia's GA article status are solved, than perhaps we can discuss the addition of current superpower claims into the intro. But not now and not in the way you've been doing it so far. Currently the power status information has preserved in the article and has its good place there. Dixi.Greyhood (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Álvares Cabral[edit]

Hello! The article about Pedro Álvares Cabral has passed through a major overhaul (from this [46] to this [47]). It has since been nominated to featured status (See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pedro Álvares Cabral/archive1). I've noticed that you have interest in the subject of the Age of Discovery so if you find some time, please make a comment there if you support or not its nomination. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do it, but a bit later, I hope the discussion won't be too fast. Greyhood (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requestioning acedemic sources on Russia as great power from you Greyhood[edit]

Becuase you have changed the status from superpower to great power I am now going to question you about Russia being great power. I want to read only acedemic sources from you that say Russia is a great power and not from great power article (not the table in the end) (that is not an effective source) because of contributing editors who have denounced edits in the great powers is not the accurate source of information when there has been conflicting contributing editors that denouced the sources on there. Since the article is misleading the readers I am questioning its sources to say otherwise with information stating Russia is a great power and not a superpower. There should be a weight of sources to have this article state it is great power (because the intro is misleading) or the article will mislead the editors or edit back to superpower status again as sources are avialable under Russia as a superpower. Provide these acedemic great power sources please.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalstatus (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered you on Russia's talk page. Don't take my time for nothing, please. Greyhood (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote you lengthy comments above, you didn't reply to that either and discussing it I rose here is more content from you but your ignoring my request for these facts. I am going to ask you for your sources. You asked the same and asking you back your sources.--Globalstatus (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've indicated to you where to find sources, and I've explained in every possible manner why Russia is a great power, since it is in UN Security Council, and explained that it is a condition to be a great power in order to be superpower. if your sources support Russia's superpowerdom than they certainly imply that Russia is a great power too. I don't want to spend more time educating you. Greyhood (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your not educating me as I have said I do not want to read inside Wikipedia sources I want to read outside internet sources, can you not Google Russia great power? There is nothing under the UN Security Council that says Russia is a great power.--Globalstatus (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An academic link from great power article [48]. There are more. Google search on "Russia great power" [49]. Compare the number of results with "Russia superpower" [50] or "Russia super power" [51]. There is really nothing to speak about. Greyhood (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The great power article [52] is a 2004 edition, I would not say Russia was a great power in that year but at the G8 in Saint Petersburg in 2006 former president Bush George declared Russia as a superpower again at the G8 meeting then there on sources have been drumming up. Second Googling is not saying anything here, try Google News but the sources are weighed on superpower more than great power on the search results. The mean point you provided one source but the sources I have provided you denounced everyone, everyone of them. Is that fair? The general view of articles say instead of great power but Russia is a emerging superpower or potential superpower, even in superpower Russia is already a potential superpower on that article and the potential superpowers; so naming Russia as a great power is misleading.--Globalstatus (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, take this into your head somehow:
  • if Russia is superpower than Russia is also great power
  • if Russia is not great power than Russia is certainly not a superpower
  • if Russia is potential superpower than Russia is not superpower at present.
So it is not misleading to name Russia a great power, because it doesn't contradict being a superpower, but is a necessary condition for superpowerdom. Greyhood (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not buying that; potential, emerging and current are not all the same. Potential and emerging are border line for superpower.--Globalstatus (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your efforts on Russia, Greyhood. Keep at it! VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just have noticed your comment. Thank you too, especially for your recent efforts to explain basic WP rules and manners to some people who badly need it. Unfortunately, so far it is not a Pygmalionish story. Greyhood (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing a large pattern of editing on Russia[edit]

I am seeing a large pattern of editing on Russia such as this here [53] and I do not see you putting the matter in consensus why are you making such and such changes as you are making charges so fast to the extend confusion to the editors to either correct or look over what your doing. For example I disagree with this edit[54] and I could name 20 more that should be questioned just made in the last 3 days as it looking like it is being from a superpower to a third world country. You have removed so many valid sources by down sizing the article to what I have no idea what is your position to do all this? Are you being paid for doing this? --Globalstatus (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I' m doing my work on this article because I take my pleasure at it, and also because it was me who is responsible for writing about 1/3 of this article, which helped to form a more comprehensive coverage of Russia, but made it's size too large. The problem has been recognised recently at Talk:Russia#GAR and urgent work needed and I've said I'd like to perform most of the work on cutting the article's size, which other editors seem to have agreed on. This all is very important, and understand that keeping the GA status of this article will do much more good both for Russia and for Wikipedia than your endless insertions of "largest", "leading", "superpower" and "spacepower". This article is not for sloganish promotion of Russia but for a good styled, neutral and accurate account of the country. We should avoid use too much of boostering language, this just repel the people, so we should use "largest", and "leading" and "power" only when it is perfectly true and there is no other way to express it. This article is also not a place to collect more and more sources on your favourite subject. Better use one good source for any claim, and certainly no more than three sources. We have no time to make prolong and fruitless discussions, like you like to do, but anybody reasonable is free to discuss my removals at the talk page. I've already explained my actions in the edit history, no quality editor has challenged them so far.
As for the edit [55], I've removed the "world's leading" because it is a bit excessive when there are just two or one energy superpowers in the world, and this is rather bad style to insert too much "leading", "largest" etc. in vast numbers. That para already has enough "largest"s. As for the second, not largest oil exporter, this just follows the source page. Greyhood (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Russia[edit]

I share your concern, but the user's edits seem to be in good faith, if misguided. I hope you'll be able to engage him in discussion. For my part, I posted a short comment to the user's response. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 22, 2010; 13:40 (UTC)

List of Russian language writers/Talklist[edit]

I transferred those writers on the talklist who now have articles to the main list. I'll continue to do this as articles become available, so that the talklist only shows writers whose articles have yet to be created. The talklist has been very helpful btw.

I also wrote an article on Alexander Levitov and included it on the relevant lists (writers and novelists).-- I Never Cry 03:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an article on Ivan Kushchevsky as well, and included it on the relevant lists.-- I Never Cry 05:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing good job on the lists related to Russian literature. Perhaps you may also be interested in working on the List of Russian people#Literature. Short descriptions of the most notable writers are needed there, along with mentioning few works. Cheers, Greyhood (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be able to work on those short descriptions pretty soon. At the moment I'm focusing on writing articles.

I just finished an article on Stepan Skitalets.-- I Never Cry 02:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking out my articles. I added categories for Kushchevsky and Skitalets, and will remember to add them to future articles.-- I Never Cry 08:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the List of Russian people#Literature today, and got a lot done. I'll continue on it whenever I get a chance. I also completed articles on Alexander Ertel and Vikenty Veresayev. The GreyHood tag looks cool btw.--  I Never Cry  09:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, double thanks! Literature is not my strongest point, and your help on the List of Russian people#Literature is very valuable. And in fact it was your userpage with signatures that inspired me to experiment with my sign. GreyHood Talk 10:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished an article on S. Karonin.-- I NEVER CRY 06:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC) And one on S.T. Semyonov.-- I NEVER CRY 08:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished re-writing and greatly expanding the article on Nikolay Pomyalovsky. Please check it out when you get a chance. -- I NEVER CRY 00:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also wrote an article on Valentina Dmitryeva.-- I NEVER CRY 03:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC) And one on Nikolay Zlatovratsky.-- I NEVER CRY 02:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And one on Ignaty Potapenko.-- I NEVER CRY 03:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Playwrights section and the Philosophers/Critics section of the List of Russian people#Literature are complete. I also wrote an article on Alexander Druzhinin.-- I NEVER CRY 06:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also completed an article on Yevgeny Chirikov.-- I NEVER CRY 08:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your help is very timely since I'm near completing the Scientists section. The sections on Playwrights and Philosophers/Critics may be in fact imcomplete. If you like, you may try and add the missing major playwrights and philosophers yourself. Just search through the List of Russian philosophers, List of Russian playwrights, Category:Russian literary critics, Category:Russian philosophers and Category:Russian dramatists and playwrights. Try to choose those authors who have, say, at least 5 wiki-articles in different languages on them. GreyHood Talk 11:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Novel and Short Story Authors section is now complete, with all the major fiction writers represented, and a full compliment of pics. The philosophers and critics section is almost there. The Playwrights and Poets sections still need quite a bit of work, which I'll get to soon.-- I NEVER CRY 04:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an article on Lidia Veselitskaya.-- I NEVER CRY 09:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template for hidden text in articles about Russian artists[edit]

Hello Greyhood, Please advice Tamplate for hidden text of section "Principal Exhibitions" in articles devoted to Russian artists, for example here in article Alexander Semionov. I tried to use the following template:

Principal Exhibitions

, but it does not work. In Russian wiki this tamplete is OK: ru:Семенов, Александр Михайлович What is my mistake? Thank you so much for advice, Leningradartist (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to fix it in your message, look at the result. The template's documentation is here: Template:Hidden. Greyhood (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help. GreyHood Talk 19:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Список самых высоких православных храмов и колоколен[edit]

Здравствуйте! Вы создали в англовики список подобный моему который был вчера выставлен на удаление. Может у вас есть что сказать в защиту списка? --San Sanitsch (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Список оставлен!!! Благодарю за помощь!!! --San Sanitsch (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Всегда пожалуйста. Я был бы крайне удивлен, если бы список не оставили. Он довольно интересен по содержанию и вполне энциклопедичен по задумке. GreyHood Talk 00:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Aleksandr Fridman cropped.png[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aleksandr Fridman cropped.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demid Pyanda[edit]

Hi. You wouldn't happen to know of any English sources that speak of Pyanda (or Penda, as I've seen it spelled a couple times) in depth? I just bought Eastward to Empire, which I hope will answer some of my questions. From his article his explorations appear to be very dubious, seeing as how the only information on his expeditions is from hearsay over a century after the fact. Do you know of any primary documents that support his discoveries? Jonas Poole (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't know any English sources about Demid Pyanda. Information on his explorations is indeed based mostly on hearsay stories collected by Gerhardt Friedrich Müller. But it seems to be definite that Russians visited Lena before the voyage of Bugor, and Pyanda's name seems to be briefly recorded in a pair of old Russian documents, without any account of his travels, though. In fact, the only source on Pyanda I have is a Russian book by I.P. Magidovich and his son V.I. Magidovich (volume 2 of 5 from their "Notes on the History of geographical discoveries", a very comprehensive study on the history of exploration). The web link to the corresponding chapter is provided in the Pyanda article, and the article itself is rather thorough (though a bit shortened) translation of the entire Magidoviches' subsection on Pyanda. Later I can try and do more research on sources about Pyanda, but not right now. Tomorrow I can give you a more precise data on Magidoviches' work if you need it. GreyHood Talk 23:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Fisher (Russian Fur Trade, 1943), men from Mangazeya reached the Lena by descending its tributary the Vilyuy in 1620 (three years before Pyanda allegedly reached the upper Lena via the Lower Tunguska). I'm very sceptical of such purported discoveries. I mean, 8,000 kilometers (about 5,300 miles) is a lot of mileage for only three and a half years. I can't think of an expedition that would compare (didn't Poyarkov travel a few thousand miles in about the same time period?). Pyanda reminds me of Juan de Fuca: someone who commanded an expedition that supposedly accomplished quite a bit by a person that actually existed, but was recorded years after the fact (Fuca's three decades to Pyanda's century), with little or no primary documents supporting any of the discoveries. Shouldn't we be more cautious in reporting his (perhaps) fictional expedition? Jonas Poole (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fisher most likely is just inaccurate. Pyanda was a fur hunter from Mangazeya, started his travel in 1620, but reached Lena only three years later, and not via Vilyuy, that's how Russian sources say about the pre-Bugor travels to Yakutia. Btw, in order to reach Lena via Vilyuy one should first go via the Lower Tunguska anyway. And 8,000 km is in fact a perfectly normal distance for Siberian rivers, at least for the future travels (Poyarkov must have traveled no less than 5000 km on his loop via the Amur River and Okhotsk Sea and back to Yakutsk, and Beketov must have traveled much more than 8000 km).GreyHood Talk 08:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This Russian source tells that Fisher (I. E. Fisher) basically gives the same story on Pyanda, though without any dates. The source also tells that it was Johann Georg Gmelin who actually recorded the Siberian Cossack legend on Pyanda, while Gerhardt Friedrich Müller found a document which proved that winter settlement Pyandino on Tunguska existed already in 1624. On the basis of the Cossack hearsay story, the document about Pyandino and a few mentions of Pyanda's name in the documents academician Alexey Okladnikov reconstructed the Pyanda's journey as it is presented in Pyanda article. This same source also tells that according to some notes made by Englishmen in Pustozersk in 1611-1612, Siberian Cossacks knew about the existence of Lena already at that time. The source also tells that three other men went to Lena after Pyanda and before Bugor in 1625-28 (the two via Vilyuy). GreyHood Talk 08:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cite a scholarly work written by an expert, and you cite some website I can't even access, yet my source is the inaccurate one? This doesn't change the fact, as you stated above, that with the exception of perhaps the Pyandino settlement on the Tunguska, there is still no real evidence that Pyanda made this journey. It's still only people writing a century after the fact, and according to you, Pyanda's journey is almost entirely pure speculation on the part of this Okladnikov fellow. That's not very convincing evidence by any means. And even if the Cossacks knew of the existence of the Lena in 1611-12, that doesn't mean they had reached it at such an early date. Numerous features were known to European explorers in North America before they were ever sighted (Great Salt Lake, most of the Great Lakes, etc.). This still doesn't prove that Pyanda's discoveries ever occured. Jonas Poole (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I had already mentioned Poyarkov's expedition (I believe Lincoln in his Conquest of a Continent sais he traveled about 3,000 miles), and I doubt Beketov traveled over 5,000 miles during his expedition to Yakutsk and back; perhaps a few thousand miles, yes, but certainly not 8,000 km. Jonas Poole (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beketov and his men made several journeys through Eastern Siberia, that's what I was talking about. In total this might have been more than 8000 km. Anyway, the distances of such scale were perfectly normal for Siberian travels. GreyHood Talk 17:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emphasis on several journeys. Documented ones at that. Pyanda's single expedition allegedly accomplished quite a bit, and the fact that there is no written documentation beyond a settlement established on the upper Lower Tunguska (where exactly, I'm curious to know?) forces me to be very wary in believing in such exploits. Jonas Poole (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pyanda's main journey actually was carried out in the 1623-24, starting from established settlements on Tunguska. This non-stop journey was some 5700 km long, quite comparable with that of Poyarkov. Magidovich gives the following coordinates on Pyanda's stops on Tunguska: at the proximity of Vilyuy the winter of 1620/21 (Nizhneye Pyandino), 62°N in the winter of 1621/22 (Verkhneye Pyandino), 58°N in the winter of 1622/23 - 20 km from Lena. What settlement was mentioned in the documents is unclear, likely at least the two first were mentioned, since none of them seems to exist in modern times. GreyHood Talk 20:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cite Russian scholarly works written by experts. Its a pity that you can't access them, but they exist and they are the best sources we have in this case (you may try to use Google translation or other instruments to read Russian). From the original written documents (that my sources write about), there seems to be enough written evidence that Pyanda at least got as far as the upper part of the Lower Tunguska, in the close proximity of Lena. The rest of the journey account is based on a hearsay evidence collected by the famous explorers Johann Georg Gmelin and Gerhardt Friedrich Müller, the latter was actually the first academic historian of Siberia. The whole reconstruction by Okladnikov, who was one of the best experts on Siberian history, seems to be rather simple and logical, especially in case if there exist not just one but several recorded legends about Pyanda, as I guess from my sources, including this one, that claims that both Gmelin and Muller independently collected info on Penda. Plenty of Russian web sources name Pyanda or Penda as the first known explorer of Lena; many start the account of Lena's exploration from Bugor's name, but no one I've seen so far claims that Bugor was the first on Lena - his journey was just the first well attested one, and the very first via Angara and Kirenga. Russians definitely traveled to Lena before Bugor - the movement to the East was very steady after the end of the Time of Troubles, and it would be too long and unexplained gap in exploration between the founding of Yeniseysk in 1619 and Bugor's voyage in 1628-30, so there definitely were some expeditions. Again, this source gives the names of Grigory Semyonov who went for Lena in 1625 (one of his men, Matvey Parfyonov is thought to have reached the river), Bazhen Kokoulin who traveled in 1626 and Martemyan Vasilyev who traveled in 1627-28. All of them traveled via Vilyuy, unlike Pyanda or Bugor. GreyHood Talk 17:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd love to read those sources (I believe you may be referring to books, not websites, which I can never trust), I've found Google Translate to be close to worthless, unfortunately. It doesn't matter the credentials of any of the three men you mentioned, as his exploits are still based (for the most part) on hearsay. Even Okladnikov, despite his accomplishments in the field, is still basing Pyanda's discoveries on a reconstruction, not much else. It doesn't matter how many sources mention Pyanda, it doesn't make his discoveries real. For example, practically everyone says Henry Hudson discovered Jan Mayen, yet there is absolutely no evidence that he did (it's based on a claim made years after the fact, simply repeated by author after author). I'll certainly look into English sources for info on the expeditions you listed that reached the upper Lena prior to Bugor -- even though, as I mentioned, Fisher (who I can't understand your distrust in) says that men from Mangazeya had reached its middle reaches via the Vilyuy in 1620 or just afterwards. Jonas Poole (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I trust Fisher, but his works are less up to date than that of the late Soviet or modern Russian historians. And I trust Russian historians more than any other in this case. The history of Siberia is not a very popular and well studied area in the West, and obviously Russian historians have better access to materials and did much more work than any Westerners on the topic. And Fisher seems just to refer to what was in reality the first stop of Pyanda (a man from Mangazeya) near Vilyuy or some of the latter journeys of Semyonov, Parfyonov, Kokoulin or Vasilyev via Vilyuy. GreyHood Talk 20:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to find more info on the men you mentioned, but couldn't find anything in English. Perhaps you could create English Wikipedia pages for them? At least the more prominent of the lot. Fisher may very well have been referring to Pyanda (if his expedition did indeed occur) or one of the other men you mentioned. Perhaps he erred on the date? I plan on doing more research on the subject, which I've became quite entralled with the last month or so. Jonas Poole (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning to start the articles on Kondraty Kurochkin, Vasily Bugor and Ivan Rebrov (explorer), as well as improve the articles on Ilya Perfilyev and Vasily Poyarkov. You are right, the subject is fascinating. I have created a very big article on Russian explorers already, but the topic is still one of the underrepresented both in the English-language literature and on Wikipedia. GreyHood Talk 20:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear. I was quite embarrassed that the Timeline of European exploration I helped create had only two references to the Russian exploration of Siberia, so I decided to research the subject a bit. A know of a few more libraries where I could possibly find more info. Hope Eastward to Empire comes in the mail soon... Jonas Poole (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just be careful, there are some very inaccurate and sensatinalized Engish-language works, like this book by W. Bruce Lincoln. Besides making a number of obvious mistakes that have been described in the book's review by User:Benjamin Trovato, this author, W. Bruce Lincoln, tends to present Russian expansion to the East as exeptionally cruel towards the natives and driven partly by the need to find food, which is very wrong and funny view. I've thoroughly checked his account of cannibalism committed by some of Vasily Poyarkov's men and compared it with the original 17th century documents on Poyarkov's voyage (btw, this site contains a good collection of 17th century documents on Siberian exploration). Basically, this W. Bruce Lincoln just interprets every single unclear place of the original historical sources in such a way as to make Russians look more evil and hungry, while the original documents tell that in fact Poyarkov's men had plenty of food initially but just couldn't take it all with them to Amur; then some of them tried to rob the food from the locals by force and quarreled with them - Poyarkov punished these men by not sharing with them the last scarce provisions the party had. Not the whole party, like one can understand from W. Bruce Lincoln, but only these punished Cossacks, thrown out of the walls of the winter settlement, resorted to cannibalism. But as the original documents state, they were simply too weak from hunger and can't "hunt for the natives", so they cannibalized not the captive locals, like W. Bruce Lincoln states, but some long dead bodies that were found near the walls of ostrog - possibly the Cossacks and locals killed in previous skirmishes, like Russian historians have suggested. GreyHood Talk 21:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I'm going to fix the article on Pyanda to make it more accurate, and bring more info on historiography there. GreyHood Talk 17:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you cite the work of Fisher from 1943, while Oladnikov's and Magidoviches' works are from 1950s-1970s, so that's just an outdated info from Fisher. GreyHood Talk 18:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to repeat that most of the article on Pyanda is actually a translation of a subchapter from this book:

  • И.П. Магидович, В.И. Магидович Очерки по истории географических открытий. Издание в 5 томах. Том 2, стр. 268-271. Москва, "Просвещение", 1983 // I.P. Magidovich, V.I. Magidovich. Notes on the History of Geographical Discoveries in 5 volumes. Vol.2, pp. 268-271. Moscow, Prosvescheniye, 1983.

It's quite a schoolarly work - Magidovich Senior was a Professor at the Geographical Faculty of the Moscow State University and an editor of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. There is no full version on the web, but the chapter on the 17th century Siberian exploration may be found here, as I've told already. And Magidoviches mention the following work of Okladnikov in their bibliography:

  • Окладников А.П. Пенда - забытый русский земплепроходец XVII века. - В сб.: Летопись Севера. М., Изд-во Главсевморпути, 1949, т. 1. // Okladnikov A. P. Penda - the forgotten Russian explorer of the 17th century. A part of: Northern Chronicle. Moscow, the publishing house of the Chief Directorate of the Northern Sea Route, 1949, vol. 1. GreyHood Talk 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moonrover -Луноход[edit]

Article: Time line of Russian invetions Мне овидно, что большинство людей, особенно молодых, со стран, которых не относились к бывшему социалистическому лагеру, не имеють представления о том, что советская космическая програма сумела мягко посодить станцию на Луне, высадить и оперировать луноход и автоматичкски привести образы лунного грунта на Землю... Такие вопросы часто задаю людам здесь на Западе. Некоторые в крайне удивляются, ведь все фильмы заканчиваются с американской победой на космической гонке и больше ни о чём говорят. Может вам кажется очевидно место расположения лунахода на фотографии музея им.К. Э. Циолковского. Я уверен, что ближе к "lower right corner" находится другой обьект, напоминающий межпланетарную станцию и на против него, в перспективе фотографии, стоит витрина. Луноход находится ближе к центру. Считаю, что нужно более точно указать его положения потому, что большинство людей не имеют предствление о том, как он выгдядяет, даже когда его колеса хорошо видны на фотографии. !Успехов! GabEuro (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Изменил указание положения на bucket on wheels on the right. Теперь точно все найдут ;) GreyHood Talk 11:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Russia[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Russia/GA2. I have de-listed the article but it can be re-nominated at WP:GAN when these concerns are addressed.. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pyotr Beketov or Petr Beketov?[edit]

Hi again. Pyotr Beketov only gets 94 hits on GoogleBooks, whereas Petr Beketov receives over 1,200. I'm well aware how usage doesn't always translate to the most correct form, so I thought I'd get your opinion on the matter. OttaSotta (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pyotr is more correct transliteration, since there is a different 'е' in Russian Петр, actually pronounced not like 'eh' but like 'yo' (and often spelled ё - see Yo (Cyrillic)). As far as I know the common practice in English Wikipedia is to transliterate Петр as Pyotr (Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky for example). There even should be some guidelines regulating this. User:Ezhiki is an expert on such matters, but he seems to be on vacation in the next several days. GreyHood Talk 22:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Novocheboksarsk[edit]

For Novocheboksarsk, I think gpw should change to Second World War, because it says it commemorates the victims of the gpw but the gpw as a term does not include the soviet invasion of Manchuria. What do you think? --WorldWarTwoEditor (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how the Soviet invasion of Manchuria is related to this article. No indications on this in this particular case. If you want to discuss this argument in a broader context, then, in fact, the Soviet-Japanese War (1945) is often included in the popular peception into the Great Patriotic War. And even if we do not include it into GPW, like most scholars tend to, this hardly affects the usage of GPW in relation to Soviet war memorials, since Soviet-Japanese War was brief and losses on Soviet side were rather small, especially in comparison with the war on Eastern Front. GreyHood Talk 11:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's related to the article because the article says "monument commemorates victims of the Great Patriotic War." I assume that the monument would also commemorate the casualties of the soviet invasion of Manchuria, regardless of how little casualties there are in comparison to the German-Soviet War, hence I think gpw in this article should chance to Second World War, being linked to the Eastern Front. What do you think? --WorldWarTwoEditor (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the original sources and contributor to the article wrote "monument commemorates victims of the "Great Patriotic War" than monument indeed commemorates victims of the Great Patriotic War. War memorials in the post-Soviet states typically bear the words "Great Patriotic War" on them, and if not, there are always "1941-1945", a period, denoted by the words "Great Patriotic War". There is nothing to argue about. Monuments are the clear case when we should use GPW (unless a monument itself clearly states that it commemorates something else). GreyHood Talk 10:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though gpw doesn't include the soviet invasion of Manchuria? --WorldWarTwoEditor (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is written on the monument "Great Patriotic War" or "1941-1945" than we should use GPW. If it is a specific monument to war with Japan, than we use Soviet-Japanese war. GreyHood Talk 14:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian aviators[edit]

I have posted the following in the talk section of the article:-

Good idea but I think you should limit the scope of the list somewhat as there have been MANY thousands of pilots in the Soviet Union and Russia. The term Aviator also includes Aircrew, which would swell the numbers by a considerable factor. Anybody else any thoughts, maybe develop some notability guidelines for this list?Petebutt (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts?Petebutt (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there are even one thousand articles on Russian or Soviet pilots on en-wiki. And the list is intended to cover not all aviators, but only those that were particularly famous - those who set some records or were military heroes. If you want to limit the scope of the list with such criteria, just write them in the lede of the list.GreyHood Talk 17:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been listed for deletion. As you are one of the editors involved, I am sending you this notice.

A civil considered discussion of this article is called for, in the interests of improving Wikipedia.

Best regards,Georgejdorner (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia[edit]

I see that you made List of Russian scientists much more useful. Nevertheless, if you expand or create an article with material from inside Wikipedia, it is not really 'new' and still needs attribution. The very least is noting it in the edit summary. Otherwise it can still be done later with {{copied}} template, as I've done for that list. Please consider this in future and review other non-trivial lists and articles that you may have have created in a similar manner. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, I'll try to heed it in the future. The content is not really new in the sense I put it first into another article. But it was created entirely or almost entirely by myself (it was based mostly on the analysis of the Category:Russian scientists and not based on the previous contributions to the list itself, which I heavily revised in the edit process), so my username in the edit summary might be enough attribution. Anyway, the inserted link to the List of Russian people may be useful. GreyHood Talk 11:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chain[edit]

Whoa, if it's a hoax, it is quite elaborate indeed. I'll see what I can do. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 20, 2010; 18:18 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this - I have zapped it. Most detected hoaxers just fade away, but this one actually asked why it was deleted. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Or so you say :) Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 23, 2010; 16:44 (UTC)

Thanks! GreyHood Talk 16:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skolkovo[edit]

Arrogance? What doust thou speaketh of? :) I'm always happy to create place stubs on request! I'll see what I can do when I return to editing on Monday; even if it turns out not to be much, you'll at least have a stub and a set index. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 23, 2010; 20:13 (UTC)

Thanks again! GreyHood Talk 20:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, I haven't forgotten. I'm having an ongoing major disaster at work (now mostly contained), but hope to get to your request later this week. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 26, 2010; 20:10 (UTC)
No hurry, I'm also busy at work this week, I won't need Skolkovo articles and disambigs intil the weekend. Salutations, GreyHood Talk 20:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've created a dab (for now at Skolkovo, as I am not sure whether any of the entries can be considered primary). The set index can be found at Skolkovo (rural locality), and the article about the village is at Skolkovo, Moscow Oblast. By the by, I copied this link from the ru-wiki article, but the whole thing had been lifted almost word-for-word from the 1890s "Исторические материалы о церквах и сёлах XVI-XVIII столетий" by Kholmogorovs.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 27, 2010; 16:04 (UTC)
Thank you for your work! The whole structure with a disambiguation page and a set index seems to be more complex, but obviously more correct solution, compared to what I have had in mind initially. Now I'll try to fix the links in the older articles of the disambiguation page.GreyHood Talk 18:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian people/Note on Feodor Rostopchin[edit]

I see why you reverted my first edit on Rostopchin. He ordered the burning rather than being ordered to do it. I've changed it again so that it reflects this point and is grammatically correct. -- I NEVER CRY 02:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I finished up the Poets section of Russian People. I'll probably add some names, especially to the Playwrights section, but the whole Literature section looks good overall.-- I NEVER CRY 07:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! You are indeed doing pretty good work on the List of Russian people. However there is the problem with this list - it's already too large, one of the longest pages on en wiki. And there are still several sections without notes and enough names. So, to make some space we will have to trim the previously expanded sections, such as the Scientists, Architects, Painters, and possibly Literature section too (I've already done some trimming with the other sections). But of course, in order to make sure we have most of the highly notable people on the list, we should continue to work on expanding the Playwrights section and other at the bottom of the list too. GreyHood Talk 12:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad. I can make some cuts in the literature section. I'll also stick to adding notes rather than new entries for now (except for adding a few more playwrights).

Maybe we should cut down on images rather than people and info? -- I NEVER CRY 13:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not in images. Images make the list nice and try to identify some of the most notable of the people listed. They are rather small and don't make the loading of the list too slow. We should cut down on bytes in order to take the list down from at least the first page in LongPages, or otherwise some users will tag the list as too long some time. This may be done by making the notes shorter, creating new redirects and leaving only the most notable names in the sections. Some images of course can be removed too if the section which contain them gets too small for all the images. GreyHood Talk 16:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars[edit]

Hey, thanks! I hope it's not another way of saying what a pain in the ass I can be :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 27, 2010; 20:22 (UTC)

Pain in the ass? Nonono, hedgehogs are generally nice if you don't sit on them :) GreyHood Talk 20:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- I NEVER CRY 01:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chernomyrdin[edit]

Would you be able to update the article regarding his death? I don't know enough about the subject, and the ITN/C editors won't post it on the Main page without a significant update: cause, impact, consolidations from political figures... whatever the newspapers are reporting. Nightw 15:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GreyHood Talk 16:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nightw 16:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, actually! Nightw 16:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! GreyHood Talk 17:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian nationality / Russian census[edit]

Since you edited the Russian census of 2010 page and this part of the article, do you consider this to be an unreliable source? An edit war is brewing on how Goble is an anti-Russian conspirator and doesn't meet wiki RS criteria, etc. Need an third party opinion on this...--Львівське (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand it right, kyivpost.com just published an entry from Goble's blog. I don't know much about kyivpost.com or Goble, but obviously non-blog sources should be preferred over the blog ones. There are Russian non-blog sources, which basically report the same facts as Goble, but don't make too much far-fetching conclusions. There is the original information from globalsib.com, and I think it is enough to have it in the article, without Goble's comments, no matter if he is "anti-Russian conspirator" or not. More serious and neutral analysis of situation would be welcomed of course, but not blog-style and not blog-sourced analysis.
The whole situation with "Russian Siberians", in fact, is rather minor matter, and from the very beginning is based on blog information. Some Russian bloggers launched a flash-mob, calling their friends to write themselves down as Siberians. Some, or even majority of notetakers wrote them down as Russians or Russian Siberians, perhaps not even on the basis of some instructions (written instructions actually included Siberian as a possible variant), but just because the general opinion in Russia and in the world is that Siberians are Russians, and not a specific ethnicity. Some bloggers reported that, and ultimately we have a blog-launched flashmob, blog-spread original information about it, and blog-sourced interpretation of it by Goble. That's a bit too much blogging, don't you think? And in such context, the relation of the entire bloggers' flashmob matter to an "ongoing topic of political debate" is certainly very, very far-fetched. GreyHood Talk 23:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. From what I understand, Goble must have originally published this for KP, and then put it in his blog as well..as is the case with many journalists these days and social media, throw it on the blog, twitter, facebook, etc. just to get it out there, right? Several other news outlets cite the Goble article as being from KP, not his blog. What was the reason for delying the EurasiaReview source / line about onging debate? The ER article quoted political figures on their stance on the issue; if it's just some bloggers in a "flash mob", why would politicians/senators/etc even care enough to comment on it? --Львівське (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They commented it because they were asked about it. And from the character of comments it is clear that the commentators didn't knew enough details on the matter, and the very idea seemed ridiculous to them. You see, as the source cites it, all politicians/senators unanimously denounced the idea of the so called Real Siberian virtual community (some bloggers in a "flash mob"). Only one philosophy instructor (not a politician, or at least it is not stated in the article) said that it is Moscow's fault that some people do such things (so he said he understood them but didn't said he supported them). Such unanimous denouncement is certainly not a "political debate". Political debate requires two different political groups that support different points of view. Here we have politicians on one side, and bloggers on the other side. And even if we start considering those bloggers seriously (dozens of residents as kievpost.com and Goble's blog says), their actual political positions and aims are unclear - they didn't called for Siberian autonomy etc., they just called to be recorded as “Siberians”. GreyHood Talk 00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't object if you reinsert the EurasiaReview source with a clear summary of it bring any reliable source with a clear summary of the situation, that is that the bloggers initiative was totally denounced by Russian politicians and church leaders. GreyHood Talk 00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what is written on the 2010 Census talk page, it seems that Goble is indeed questionable as RS, since he reports a very fringe views without properly analyzing their true scale, and he doesn't show neutral enough attitude to them. So I propose to bring another sources on the matter, not Goble. The notability of the entire matter is questionable, however, and while I'm neutral on reporting it, the other users seem not to like the idea. GreyHood Talk 14:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble finding other sources outside of Goble on Kyiv Post, or the Globalsib article...other news sites just piggy back on the KP Goble article. Should the entire section be blanked or is there part of it that can be salvaged in a neutral fashion? I've already been reported by Lokiit for edit warring...--Львівське (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the Census talk page. And I sincerely hope that now there is no need for anybody to get blocked, since an actual discussion started on the talk page instead of edit summaries/reverts. GreyHood Talk 23:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would a minimalist statement like "There have been some instances of Russian census officials disregarded or refusing to document certain nationalities, namely, "Siberian". According to government protocols, Siberian is an acceptable nationality blah blah blah" be acceptable? I dont think that puts it out of scope/scale.--Львівське (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some instances of Russian census officials disregarded or refusing to document certain nationalities, namely, "Siberian" - all reports on this seem to be based on blog information, coming from non-neutral involved party. No independent verification of the fact has been made. Rosstat officials either denied that there was any problem, or promised to check it but didn't made any conclusive statements. And there is no generally recognised Siberian nationality, so we shouldn't make such statements anyway. GreyHood Talk 16:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to government protocols, Siberian is an acceptable nationality blah blah blah - afterall, it is not clear for me in what sense Siberian is acceptable in protocols. So far I understand only that Siberian is among the possible expected answers from January 2010 protocols, and that doesn't necessarily mean that the nationality is actually recognised - that's just an interpretation by globalsib. According to Rosbalt source, a Rosstat official claims that there is no "Sibiryaks" in the official lists, that the law has changed and it is notemaker who ultimately makes decisions how to fill the census blank, and that notemakers should ask more questions on nationality if they recieve the answer "Sibirean". So basically, it seems, there wasn't any direct violation of existing laws during the census. GreyHood Talk 16:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the Census talk page VsevolodKrolikov made a nice statement that while the Siberian movement campaign during this Census is worth mention and has been reported by reliable sources, the reports of refusals to accept "Siberian" do not seem to have enough backing. GreyHood Talk 16:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope[edit]

Its a link to ruler of the Soviet Union, not the Soviet period.. Perhaps we should create a seperate article for the heads of government and heads of state of the RSFSR? --TIAYN (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were heads of government and state of the RSFSR from 1917 to 1991, not just 1917 to 1922.. Seeing that these people also ruled Russia, I think a list for them should be created! --TIAYN (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thats fine but isnt the RSFSR also the official successor state to the Russian Federation? If so it should be included seeing that they were also leaders of an entity which was Russia.. I mean this could be discussed and made more complicated than what it really is.. If i created a list for the RSFSR heads of government and state, could I include it in the template? --TIAYN (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Russian books from Archive.org, etc.[edit]

I thought you might find these books on Russian science, people, and history helpful.

These are all free electronic copies of books, with a better assortment of file types than Gutenberg.org. Many of the PDFs contain rare high res images of writers, historical figures, etc.

You can also search for particular authors by name here. In searching, Russian authors with names that end in sky, like Uspensky, are usually spelled with an i, or 2, like Uspenski, or Uspenskii.

Archive.org is where I've found most of the images and information that I use in articles and on lists. The PDFs that don't say "Google" underneath them have the high quality images, depending on PDF file size. These images are out of copyright due to the age of the books. Here's an example of a nice frontispiece image from a Russian language volume of Gleb Uspensky. If you want to save a copy of an image you should view that particular PDF page at 50% or 100% zoom (the little + and - buttons in the top left corner), this will give you a copy of the image with a size of 500kb or more.

The majority of the books are in English, but there are also thousands of Russian language books available.

Also, this is the page where I get all the icons I use, if you haven't already seen it.

If you get a chance, check out the various Russian literary lists: I've added alot of illustrations.

Here are my new articles too:

These are longer and more detailed than my others, mostly because I had more sources.

I haven't done anything with the List of Russian people. I figured I'd give you time to do your thing.

This post almost looks like an article in itself! Lol. Have a good one.-- I NEVER CRY 05:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! All this may be very helpful indeed, and the book on Russian science up to 1860 is definitely very interesting, I'm going to read it a bit later. Early Russian science and technology are among my favourite topics, as you probably noticed from the Timeline of Russian inventions (created by me) and the List of Russian scientists.
  • I've bookmarked the icon page. Recently I started to use many icons in such my projects as this one (icons have been taken from here).
  • Currently I'm a bit busy in real life, as well as with some of my Russian economy projects on wiki, and with this deletion review. But I'll try to check the literary lists at the weekend, and continue the work on the List of Russian people, where the improvement of the Literature section is my next aim. I'm going to make notes and wikilinks shorter where possible, and remove few less important authors, just as I've done with other sections. If you happen to disagree with some of my edits, feel free to fix them.
  • Also, I've ultimately followed your proposal to remove excessive images from the List of Russian people, both in order to reduce its size and loading time, and in order to improve layout of the page on smaller screens. GreyHood Talk 16:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian people template[edit]

Just so you know, I've created the List of leaders of the Russian SFSR article.. --TIAYN (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! I've brought the RSFSR leaders to a separate and more prominent position in the template, so as to reduce possible confusion in the main timeline of leaders. GreyHood Talk 21:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for the timeline[edit]

How about nominating the timeline article to WP:DYK? It just needs an interesting hook. Offliner (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, for some reason I thought that timelines and lists are not appropriate for DYK. But if you think this can be done, perhaps it could be something like Did you know that the 2018 FIFA World Cup recently has been added to the List of Russian megaprojects? ;) GreyHood Talk 02:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GLONASS launch[edit]

[56]. How annoying. For many years there were no serious launch failures, and then this happens - just as the system was about to become complete.[57] Hopefully the culprit was the old Blok DM upper stage (which is not used anymore for commercial launches) and not the lower stages of Proton, because otherwise it could seriously affect Khrunichev's commercial business. I guess it's clear the GLONASS constellation will not become fully complete this year. Offliner (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, very unfortunate turn of events. I was going to bring GLONASS to the ITN, but then there came the news about this failure. Interestingly, BBC reported the launch only when it became clear that it failed, not earlier, when other news agencies reported on the GLONASS restoration. Now we can only wait for the official announcement of a new date of the constellation completion. Hopefully they'll manage to do this next year. GreyHood Talk 15:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me...[edit]

The Original Barnstar
For the massive amounts of time and effort you put into the articles about Russia in general, and for this in particular, allow me to present you with this original barnstar. Your efforts are greatly appreciated (even if it doesn't show ;))—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 6, 2010; 15:07 (UTC)

ITN/C and Serbian scalpings[edit]

Apols for removing your suggestion: that wasn't my intention. I had intended to copy and paste it to edit the text (because I'm such a slow typist) but I must have cut and pasted instead. Ooops. (Still think the bit about celebratory haircuts is unsuitable though) Kevin McE (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worry, the copypaste was quite obvious. And haircuts idea seemed funny to me, and a good way to make the ITN section more fun while still perfectly correct in reporting the events. I've been half-serious when suggesting it - don't really expect that to pass, but if others like the blurb, why not? GreyHood Talk 23:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show business/List of Russian People[edit]

I made the show business category a part of performing arts. It looked strange to have show business as it's own category with only 4 people in it.-- I NEVER CRY 01:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Actually I was planning to rename the category into the "Show business and Internet" and add some Russian internet celebrities there, who hardly fall into the arts category. But it seems I won't have time to do it in the near future, so it's indeed better to merge the section with "Performing arts" for now. GreyHood Talk 02:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the future Show Business section could include some modern Russian TV personalities; talk-show hosts, news anchors, popular TV show hosts, etc? I'm sure you'll put something good together eventually. Also, maybe I could add a journalists section to literature, with 8 or 10 journalists. For now, I'll keep doing notes for Performing Arts, and then Sportspeople.--I NEVER CRY 04:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea with journalists. I'll see to that later. As for the show business and TV, I think this can be in the Performing Arts or as a separate section. GreyHood Talk 11:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, after searching through the Category:Russian journalists I have found that most notable journalists may be listed under such sections as Writers, Critics and Radio and TV people, so there is no need for a separate section actually. I have created the Radio and TV people and expanded other sections. GreyHood Talk 16:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Medvedev modernisation programme[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello[edit]

as advised by wikipedia, just informing you that YOU'VE GOT MAIL FleetingJoy (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got an answer. GreyHood Talk 13:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--I NEVER CRY 04:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hope this will be a happy year for all of us! GreyHood Talk 14:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greyhood/Archive_2008-2010&oldid=1144342006"