User talk:Fenix down/Archive 1

Welcome...

Hello, Fenix down, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help How to write a great article Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place on your talk page and ask your question there.

An Invite to join WikiProject Russia
Hi, you are cordially invited to join WikiProject Russia. We are a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Russia.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:19, July 24, 2009 (UTC)

Mys Shmidta
I simply moved it back. If you look at the row of the tabs at the top of every article, you should see one titled "move". When you click on it, you can specify the title to move the article to as well as a field to explain your reasoning. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:51, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Ref errors
Darn. Don't beat yourself too hard, because the fault is entirely mine :) I recently changed the ref name in the census template to "PopCensus", so it matches the exact same ref coded into the "inhabited locality" infobox; this way we can still use both the infobox and the census template without having either duplicate refs or having to spell out the 2002 Census line.  I'll take a look tomorrow to see if there's an easy fix.  Sorry about that!  I for some reason was sure that "Census2002" is hardly ever used outside the template.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 13, 2010; 23:47 (UTC)
 * That page uses OKATO as a source, and since OKATO does not list any of those urban-type settlements, the article does not either. If you are willing to add and source the settlements being liquidated, I have nothing against it.  Just make sure you mark which line corresponds to which source, and all should be good.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 14, 2010; 13:03 (UTC)
 * If you have access to them, of course you can!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 14, 2010; 15:37 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as it turned out, there is no easy way to fix those errors&mdash;it had to be done manually. On the bright side, only a handful of articles was affected (and all but one were about the places in Chukotka AO), so I just went through them and replaced "Census2002" with "PopCensus". Hopefully, I have not missed anything; if I did, please let me know (or just make a correction yourself). Once again, sorry about the scare!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 14, 2010; 16:12 (UTC)

Quick A
Yup, it's supposed to be Novoye Chaplino.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 28, 2010; 14:46 (UTC)

Ozyorny
Hi there! Good to see you editing again! Just wanted to drop a quick note regarding Ozyorny. It was merged into Egvekinot sometime between 1999 and 2004, although I'm having a hard time finding anything official to that effect. However, the borders description section of the document cited in the Iultinsky District article (to support the municipal composition) explicitly refers to Ozyorny as the "former inhabited locality", and there are other legal documents referring to Ozyorny as a microdistrict of Egvekinot. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 2, 2011; 17:54 (UTC)
 * Congrats on your new job, and glad to hear about your expansion plans :) To answer your questions:
 * They should definitely be mentioned in the narrative, but since there is currently no narrative in this article, that means there's a lot of work to be done :) They shouldn't be added to the main list, though. The only source document I know of where these urban-type settlements are listed is the law on the administrative-territorial division of Chukotka AO, and even there they are not listed district-by-district, but rather as a separate list of names. Another option is to add a separate section just for these places.
 * Former settlements are definitely notable if they were notable when they existed (per WP:NTEMP: "notability is not temporary"), although the act of abolition may affect the article's title or even lead to its being merged into another article. Since you already added quite a bit of content to that article, I don't think merging it into Evgekinot would be a good idea, but it probably needs to be renamed Ozyorny Microdistrict or something like that, and the lead needs to be tweaked accordingly. I was going to do it myself (the article is on my to-do list), but if you are willing to work on it, I, of course, have no problem with it (although I'll probably go over it again later anyway).
 * It is perfectly OK to use archived pages as references. Even though it was me who removed the refs because the links were dead, I apologize that it didn't occur to me to replace them with links to web archives instead!
 * You are right about the spelling.
 * Let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 2, 2011; 18:33 (UTC)

Rural settlements vs. rural localities
Yes, you are correct&mdash;all inhabited localities (urban or rural) retain their status unless abolished (like Ozyorny was). The municipal incorporation (or lack of it) has no effect on that status (because the locality type is the administrative aspect of a place, not a municipal one). So, when Krasneno Rural Settlement was abolished, Krasneno itself still remained a rural locality, only instead of having a local government of its own, it is now governed directly by the municipal district's authorities (and is considered an intra-settlement territory of the district). This is usually done when the municipal formation cannot afford the overhead associated with supporting a local government of its own. To that effect, I changed the list in the Anadyrsky District article, but I haven't yet gotten to changing the Krasneno article, so please go ahead and edit it if you want to. The situation with Nutepelmen is exactly the same (apart from its being in a different district, of course).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 3, 2011; 14:08 (UTC)

Infoboxes
The infobox has a separate parameter for inter-settlement territories. Just set intra_settlement_territory=yes. Of course, the municipal district will still need to be specified, because the intra-settlement territory is a part of a municipal district which is not a part of an urban or rural settlement.

With the inhabited localities in the process of being abolished, no municipal data needs to be filled out in the infobox. Technically, those places are treated as intra-settlement territories (i.e., the population gets the municipal services from the municipal district authorities), but since this is not documented in any of the laws or other sources, we shouldn't be specifying it either. The infobox only has one mandatory parameter (federal subject), so not filling out any other lines would simply suppress them. Does this answer your questions?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 12, 2011; 13:29 (UTC)

Ushakovskoye & Lavrentiya
Sure, no problem. Law #33 is the law on the administrative-territorial division; it has nothing to do with the municipal divisions. Article 13.2 in particular lists the rural localities, not the rural settlements. Rural settlements may include more than one locality, although in Chukotka it's usually not the case. Ushakovskoye itself, of course, is unpopulated, but it has never been officially abolished (there's quite a bit of bureaucratic overhead involved with officially abolishing a place&mdash;it has to be inventoried first, for example&mdash;which is why I guess the authorities never bothered and just let it hang). However, since there is no population, it is not mentioned in the laws dealing with the municipal structure of Iultinsky (Municipal) District. It's not a very thorough approach, but that's how things are in Russia :)

As for the Law #47, yes, Lavrentiya and Lorino are incorporated as separate rural settlement, and no, your reading of Russian is not poor&mdash;the law does indeed indicate that the administrative center of Lavrentiya Rural Settlement is in Lorino. That could be a mistake in the law (shocking, eh? :)), but it could very well be true. While it is not very common for a municipal formation to have its administrative center in an outside place, such things happen. What there is no doubt about, though, is that Lorino and Lavrentiya are municipally incorporated as separate rural settlements. Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 19, 2011; 18:49 (UTC)

FYI
Beringovsky and Shmidtovsky Administrative Districts were merged, correspondingly, into Anadyrsky and Iultinsky Administrative Districts effective June 2011. I've updated the articles, but please don't hesitate to make further corrections if I missed anything. In particular, Anadyrsky and Iultinsky District articles need another round (or two) of proofreading. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 14, 2011; 18:52 (UTC)
 * We don't have a policy about the former districts, nor do we have enough articles about them to establish how they are normally dealt with. I'd say do whatever feels right :) When we have more than a few such articles, we could start thinking about how to organize them best.
 * As for mentioning them elsewhere, the historical information like this indeed belongs in the "administrative divisions of XXX" articles. The one about Chukotka is a barebones liststub, but that's where the information ultimately should go (compare, for example, with how Murmansk Oblast or Adygea are done). The navbox, that I'm not so sure about. It's probably OK to include the historical districts in Chukotka's, but for some other federal subjects the lists of historical districts will contain dozens and dozens names; including them all in addition to current districts would make the navboxes very unwieldy.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2011; 15:34 (UTC)

Chukotka
Hi, Fenix down! I understand what you were trying to do with Cities and towns in Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, and it does make sense. What does not make sense is to add urban-type settlements to the template and still call it "Cities and towns in..." :) Urban-type settlements are not towns.

That said, you are welcome to go about it the other, more logical way. For Primorsky Krai, for example, someone designed a template (Primorsky Krai) which lists cities/towns, urban-type settlements, and districts. It is still fairly compact and useful&mdash;I see nothing preventing us from having a similar template for Chukotka Autonomous Okrug. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:33, July 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the articles it would replace the existing one (which, once the new template is in place, can be turned into a redirect&mdash;cf. Template:Cities and towns in Primorsky Krai). If the background story interests you, the existing one is a part of a set of similar templates which were produced for each federal subject quite a while ago.  The reasoning for inclusion of only cities/towns was, at the time, that most of the urban-type settlement and district links would be red.  A navigational template with a sea of red links, as you understand, hardly assists in navigation :)
 * While for the most federal subjects this is still true, there are many more articles about the urban-type settlements now than when the templates were created. For Chukotka, however, since it is such a sparsely populated region, this is less of a concern.  Eight districts, three towns, and thirteen urban-type settlements are hardly going to be overwhelming.
 * Anyway, if you need help with developing the template, please let me know; I'll be happy to assist. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:46, July 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for a first draft it looks quite good! I do have a few comments, however.
 * First off, for consistency sake, I would recommend renaming the template to Chukotka Autonomous Okrug and to include the CAO's districts. This will be in line with the similar Primorsky Krai template&mdash;hopefully, as articles get written, we'll be able to replace the city/town templates with their full administrative divisions counterparts.
 * Second, I see you were trying to include the rural localities into the template. I would strongly advise against that.  There are 44 rural localities ("rural settlement", by the way, is a term we reserve for a municipal formation type) in CAO as of 2009, and that's actually a pretty low number compared to other federal subjects (only Nenets AO and Ingushetia have fewer rural localities than that).  Even so, if you list every single one of them, the template is going to be unnecessarily overloaded even if they are all blue.  It's important to remember here that these templates are not intended to hold everything but the kitchen sink; they should only list the most high-profile stuff (urban-type settlement level is a fairly good threshold) and be consistent within themselves (if some items are included but not the others, it should be easy to figure out why exactly those others were excluded).
 * Finally, with the image, one (a flag or a coat of arms) is enough. It's purely decorative (and probably redundant) anyway.
 * Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:08, July 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pretty much. Rural localities are interesting (I'll be the first person to tell that to anyone who asks :)), but there are just way too many of them for an average federal subject to fit comfortably on a template like this one (even a sparsely populated Murmansk Oblast already has over a hundred of them, and that oblast is in the bottom ten of the list).  In the past, the solution was to list them on the pages of the corresponding districts (which really is the only logical way to group them)&mdash;and if we have districts on the templates, finding their rural localities is going to be just a click away.  Of course, this would require writing articles about the districts, but I can help you with that, if you want.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:06, July 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, yes, I can help you with that. First, however, I need to clarify that when speaking of Russian districts, one should distinguish between the administrative districts and the municipal districts.  Not to bore you with the details, the main difference is roughly that the former are set by the government of the federal subject, while the latter are formed based on the decisions of the local self-government.  The process and setup has its peculiarities from one federal subject to another, so I'll just focus on Chukotka from here on.
 * As a side note, I should also point out that in English Wikipedia articles are created about the administrative divisions, and the municipal divisions are mentioned in those articles. Russian Wikipedia takes the opposite approach (the majority of their articles are about municipal units).  Just something to keep in mind when translating articles between Wikipedias.
 * Anyway, back to Chukotka. As in many other federal subjects, the borders of the municipal districts of Chukotka match the borders of the administrative districts exactly, although, legally, it does not have to be that way.  In other words, it is entirely possible to have municipal districts which are completely different from the administrative districts; in practice this is not usually done because when the districts match, it is easier to coordinate the state (=federal subject's) matters with the local matters.
 * In July 2008, Iultinsky and Shmidtovsky Municipal Districts of CAO were merged to form Vostochny Municipal District, and Anadyrsky and Beringovsky Municipal Districts were merged to form Tsentralny Municipal Districts. Note, however (and I can't emphasize this enough), that only municipal districts were merged; the administrative districts remained in place as before (so we would still have articles about all four, while the Russian Wikipedia would have only two).
 * The reason why you won't find any mention of Vostochny or Tsentralny Municipal Districts anywhere is because the law mandating the merge was amended in October 2008&mdash;as a result of the amendment, the names "Vostochny" and "Tsentralny" were discarded and replaced, correspondingly, with "Iultinsky" and "Anadyrsky". So, as of today, CAO has eight administrative districts (Anadyrsky, Beringovsky, Bilibinsky, Chaunsky, Chukotsky, Iultinsky, Providensky, and Shmidtovsky), but only six municipal districts (Anadyrsky, Bilibinsky, Chaunsky, Chukotsky, Iultinsky, and Providensky).  Iultinsky Municipal District is formed on the territories of Iultinsky and Shmidtovsky Administrative Districts, and Anadyrsky Municipal District is formed on the territories of Anadyrsky and Beringovsky Administrative Districts.
 * The German Wikipedian probably caught the July change, but not the October's, hence the problem.
 * Regarding your other questions: we do not anglicize the district names, we romanize them (so, it's "Shmidtovsky", not "Shmidt")&mdash;the reason is that within the romanization guidelines you can get only one variant, whereas with anglicization numerous variants are possible, and it is often unclear which one should be used ("Shmidt"? "Schmidt"?  how should the names of other districts be anglicized?).  There is no way to establish an unambiguous guideline if you go the anglicization route.
 * As for my expertise, while researhing Russian administrative divisions and their history is only a hobby of mine (I am by no means a professional in this area), within the confines of that topic I know quite a bit about everything. However, as far as editing is concerned, don't worry about me at all&mdash;while (within this topic) I can write an article about pretty much anything, at this point I am focusing mostly on the organization (i.e, on having clear and logical naming guidelines in place, making sure the articles are interlinked properly, ensuring that the terminology is used consistently across all articles, etc.).  It doesn't mean I wouldn't write something when asked to, but please don't limit your content-creating efforts on my account.  I add each and every new article to my to-do list, and while it usually takes me a while to get back to review them (to do basic fact-checking, to make sure everything is up-to-date, to ensure the terminology usage is correct and consistent), I don't have a habit of ignoring them.  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:30, July 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * I am glad I could help. I am also very glad that someone else took interest in the same topic I am working on&mdash;this doesn't happen very often :)  Considering how poorly this subject is covered in en_wiki, every little bit helps a lot.  Thank you for that.
 * To answer your questions: the template box should only list administrative, not municipal, divisions, because this is how the information is structured in the English Wikipedia. Of course, the municipal divisions should be mentioned in the articles about corresponding administrative divisions (so, the Iultinsky District article should say something to this effect&rarr;"Iultinsky District is an administrative district of CAO...  Municipally, it is incorporated with Shmidtovsky District to form Iultinsky Municipal District, which covers the territories of both administrative districts..."
 * As for how the districts should be referred to, while "raion" is technically correct, for consistency (and out of respect to English speakers most of whom would have no clue what a "raion" is), we use "district", which, in this case, is a very good English equivalent. In many situations (e.g., "oblast" vs. "province", "krai" vs. "territory"), translating a term can be ambiguous and confusing, but with "raions" we are in luck&mdash;we are not adding to confusion elsewhere by using a translated term.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:23, July 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * But of course you are welcome to ask as many questions as you need! If/when I don't know/don't have time, I'll let you know that right away :)
 * With rural localities, the idea is to have them listed in corresponding district articles. As an example, see Giaginsky District, but if you have a better idea how to lay them out, you are more than welcome to try it out.  I was using Adygea districts as pilots for this kind of work, but those are still in pilot phase and can be improved.  The grouping of rural localities that makes most sense is by selsoviets, but since neither Adygea nor Chukotka have them any longer, the next best thing is to use municipal rural settlements (Giaginsky District is done that way).
 * Administrative divisions of Chukotka Autonomous Okrug does indeed not to be updated&mdash;even though it's possible to jam all rural localities on one page for Chukotka, for most other federal subjects such an approach would simply overwhelm the list.
 * As for how to refer to the rural localities, for Chukotka it is rather simple, as they all have the same designation (selo). This is not the case for most other federal subjects, mind you.  In general, when it comes to selos, in the lede we refer to them as follows: "a village (selo) of Foo"; and after that it's OK to refer to them just as "villages".  As an example, you can use Galyonki.
 * Regarding the Censuses, the ru-census2002 and su-census1989 templates are named, accordingly, "Census2002" and "Census1989". The ru-census wrapper retains those names as well.  So, once you used any of these templates, you can refer back to them by using  and  after any other statement that needs to be referenced back to those censuses.  I should probably note this somewhere in the template docs.  If still you need examples on how this works, let me know, I'll create a test diff for you.  It's easier done than explained :)
 * The infoboxes that had been added shouldn't have been. Presently, we only have an infobox for cities/towns; adding it to the articles about urban-type settlements and rural localities makes no sense whatsoever.  I'll be cleaning those out (by offloading useful data from the infobox to the article's text) when I get to the articles in question.  Eventually, proper infoboxes for urban-type settlements and rural localities will be created, but so far the consensus on WP:RUSSIA has been that we don't yet need them.
 * Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:19, August 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Subdivision of municipal districts into urban okrugs/urban settlements/rural settlements is federally mandated, although the process of partitioning is left to the federal subjects (although it should be carried out within the federal law guidelines). You are, however, right to point out that the rural localities in Chukotka are located sparsely, so in order to meet the federal law requirements, each of those villages is incorporated as a rural settlement (bearing the same name as the village itself).  Exceptions are as follows: Tavayvaam is administratively subordinated to Anadyr and is municipally a part of Anadyr Urban Okrug; Apapelgino is administratively subordinated to Pevek and is municipally a part of Pevek Urban Settlement; there are also five settlements I forgot about in my previous post.  Note these are not urban-type settlements, but rather settlements of rural type, which are considered to be rural localities just as the villages (selos) are.  Those five settlements are Otrozhny (Anadyrsky District); Vesenny and Dalny (Bilibinsky District); Bystry and Yuzhny (Chaunsky District).  Neither of the five is municipally incorporated; all are considered to be inter-settlement territories.  The remaining thirty-seven villages (selos) are all incorporated as rural settlements in corresponding municipal districts.
 * Regarding Vostochny and Tsentralny Municipal Districts, there was actually no document explicitly renaming them back to Anadyrsky and Iultinsky. Here's what happened: on May 30, 2008, the laws merging the municipal districts were passed.  In those laws, the new (merged) districts were referred to as Vostochny and Tsentralny.  On October 23, however, these laws were amended&mdash;in effect, all mentions of "Vostochny" and "Tsentralny" were purged and replaced with "Anadyrsky" and "Iultinsky".  Now, the important thing to remember here is that every geographical renaming in Russia (including naming of newly formed municipal entities) requires approval on the federal level.  No request for approval was submitted with the May 30 law, so "Vostochny" and "Tsentralny" were never officially names of the new municipal districts.  My guess (and it's pure speculation!) is that the bureaucrats in Chukotka didn't want any hassle with the approval of new names, so they simply amended the law to use names that already existed (which does not require federal approval).  With all this in mind, I don't think that "Vostochny"/"Tsentralny" names are even worth mentioning, as they never had an official status of any sort.  Isn't Russia's bureaucracy machine fascinating? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:38, August 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, Otrozhny, Vesenny, Dalny, Bystry, and Yuzhny turned out to be urban-type settlements after all. Seems that it was an oversight in the source; it is now corrected.  Just an FYI in case you are planning to start these.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:45, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ezhiki, I have been reading a bit about these places and wondered whether they still existed. Are you saying that Otrozhny, Vesenny, Dalny, Bystry, and Yuzhny should be added to the list of urban type settlements? Fenix down (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, yes. I don't at the moment have any sources to verify if these places are still populated at all, but they have not officially been liquidated just yet.  The Law of Chukotka governing the administrative and territorial structure still lists these five on the same line with Shatryorsky, Leningradsky, Aliskerovo etc.; all are marked as "slated for liquidation" but officially still exist (the law was last amended in June 2009, so this is pretty current).  Whether they are presently populated or not, however, is not that important&mdash;we ought to have an article about them all the same (because obviously they were populated in the past).  If you have anything useful about these places, please consider starting the articles at some point.  I can always add basic stats if need be&mdash;just let me know if you need help with that aspect.  Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:17, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes
I've just noticed your edit to Uelen and realized that I forgot to update you on the status of the infoboxes. Infobox Russian city is now a redirect to Infobox Russian inhabited locality; the latter is now suited for use in articles about the localities of any kind (cities/towns, urban-type settlements, and rural localities). On the documentation page I provided sets of copy-paste models with the parameters relevant to each kind. You don't have to try filling them all out&mdash;by default, any empty lines are now suppressed. The absolute minimum of information that needs to be provided is the name of the federal subject in which the place is located, and the absolute useful minimum is that plus coordinates (which will lead to a location map being automatically generated).

I hope you will find the new infobox useful. If you see any problems with it or have any concerns, please let me know. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, August 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * The infoboxes which are already in place wouldn't have changed much, because I was shooting for backward compatibility&mdash;re-designing an infobox and then having to go through over a hundred pages trying to change old stuff is no fun at all! The only parameters that suffered were "Events"&mdash;those are no longer supported.  MunStatus and InJurisdictionOf have also been deprecated in favor of new parameters, but are still supported for compatibility reasons.  Other than that, the only change you'd see is forced citation requests and disappearance of the fields which are not populated.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:23, August 27, 2009 (UTC)

Can you fill out the new infoboxes in Vstrechny, Valkumey, Ugolnye Kopi, Shakhtyorsky, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, Provideniya ‎, Leningradsky, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, Krasnoarmeysky, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug ‎, Komsomolsky, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug. Keep up the good work  Himalayan   16:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do! That was the next thing I was going to do, I'd been saving it up! :P Fenix down (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

route to Anadyrsk
Your (I guess) article on Bilibinsky District has the Maly Anyuy River as part of the route from Nizhnekolymsk to Anadyrsk. Do you have a source? Fisher's book on Semyon Dezhnyov has it as the Bolshoy Anyuy (but only on page 274 with no details). Bolshoy Anyuy looks closer on the map. ((2. From google, I guess Petit Fute in the references is a French tour book, but this would not be familiar to a U.S. reader.))Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting that. I had got confused. The Bolshoy Anyuy became an important link between Anadyrsk and Nizhmekolymsk, particularly as it was the focal point of the trade fairs between the settlers and natives. Petit Fute mentions that the Maly Anyuy became an important link between Nizhnekolymsk and Yakutsk. I have corrected the links. I have not included the reference tothe link between Nizh. and Yakutsk as I did not feel it was of specific relevance to an article on Bilibinsky district.


 * If you feel your reference is more reliable, I would happily accept a correction / clarification from you. Petit Fute is indeed a french book (Its more a general overview of the area than a specific tour guide in the Lonely Planet vein). It is available in English, but this is a rare version. However, it is still a worthwhile book to cite, although I have spotted a couple of errors in the text myself, so am always happy to accept corrections to Petit Fute sourced statements if they come from more mainstream sources. Fenix down (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You might be interested to know that the Petit Fute Chukotka is available on Google books ; there does not seem to be much, if any, restriction (though sometimes the number of views is limited on Google Books). Dankarl (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, I noticed this a little while ago, but there seemed to be quite a few random restrictions. Sometimes it would show some pages and other times completely different sections. I noticed a few weeks ago that it was showing the entire work. Is this something that will be constant or do google books do this for a while then go back to extracts? If the whole work will stay there permanantly, is it worth going through and redoing my citations to point to the web-based source, or is it OK simply to ref the book? Fenix down (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Myself, I include Google Books references anytime they include at least whole-page excerpts that apply to the article, or when I have found the within-book indexing useful, unless there's something better. I have not myself noticed random changes in access but sometimes a gradual or abrupt restriction on access based on some usage threshold.Dankarl (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool, I'll look to go back and provide weblinks for my sources when I get the time.Fenix down (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I wish I could be sure. Fisher usually says Anyuy and only has Bolshoy on one page with no details. Fisher's book is excellent scholarship, but details like this would be hard for an Englishman to check in 1981. Since Fisher seems to be the standard source in English, we are probably stuck with his page 274 until something better comes along.  But I wish I had something more solid.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have found it difficult to locate a significant number of sources in English, which does mean a vagueness about some of the articles. I think it would be useful to add the reference anyway, but indicate that it is unclear exactly which river is being discussed (unless you think that this is too confusing).


 * Thanks for clearing up some of the articles I had started as well, they're much more concise! Fenix down (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the petit fute reference. If you haven't already, download google earth and check the terraine box. When entering rivers, find another river, click the category box and see if its not there under a different spelling. I stepped on your rayon articles last week. I guess this was impolite, but I didn't realize it until after I was through. Sorry. I will now leave Chukotka and do something else.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay Benjamin, I've been away with work. I hope I didn't give you the impression I was annoyed with your contributions. to be honest, its good to see another editor getting involved with these articles. It seems since I started on Chukotka that its only me and Ezhiki who had any interest in this area. I'm delighted there is someone else to offer clarification on geographical and historical issues (as an aside, I note you seem to have particular knowledge of Semyon Dezhnev, I would very much appreciate any recommendations reading wise about the man) in an area which I think is of global importance in historical and anthropological areas. It was google earth that got me interested in this area and to be honest its not arena I would consider myself an expert, any help you could provide about using it as a tool to populate wiki articles would be gratefully received. Everything I have written has come from my own recent reading, not background knowledge in the subject. Your clarifications have been invaluable in making the articles more concise and accurate, so please keeo an eye on these pages and help everyone out with your work. Fenix down (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Provideniya
You are showing Provideniya in the wrong location in the infobox mapDankarl (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesnt look right on the map, but the only other coords I can find for it are only seconds different to those already there. If you know of more accurate figures, please add them.Fenix down (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem seems to be you have east longitude where you want west. I tried putting a w in the infobox and it threw an error. Do you know infobox syntax? Dankarl (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't beyond the default, though the Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality page says that it defaults to east, but I don't know how to change it to west.Fenix down (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * restored previous coordinats and locator map til this gets fixed. Dankarl (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * yeah, that's the most sensible thing to do. Thanks.Fenix down (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * those two-level location maps are pretty slick; who do we thank?Dankarl (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish I could say it was me but it isn't! I believe it is Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?), he's certainly been doing some work on the infobox templates recently. Those new maps are much better than the old ones, much more clear.Fenix down (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Coords Wrong!
Dear Fenix, you reverted my edit and broke the coords. you have the coords listed as this :65°35′3″N 190°59′20″E http://stable.toolserver.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Lavrentiya&params=65_35_3_N_190_59_20_E_region:RU_type:city(1,333) http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html?mlat=65.584167&mlon=190.988889&zoom=12&layers=B000FTF

This is wrong, too far east.

190 ? what is that exactly, coords are 180 till -180.

So according to http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/DDDMMSS-decimal.html 65°35′3″N 170°59′20″W is 65.584167 -170.988889

Here in google maps you can see that is it Lavrentiya : http://maps.google.de/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=65%C2%B035%E2%80%B23%E2%80%B3N+170%C2%B059%E2%80%B220%E2%80%B3W&sll=35.46067,-88.945312&sspn=26.145956,55.458984&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=&ll=65.583946,-170.988894&spn=0.027815,0.108318&t=h&z=13

the location is http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/527802328 65,5841518, -170,9889033

Thanks mike Mdupont (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

See alsos
Hi, Fenix! I actually meant to drop you a note yesterday regarding see also lists (like this one you re-added) but forgot. "See also" sections normally serve as a place to aggregate links to related articles. Ideally, all these links would eventually be incorporated into the article itself. Links that cannot be incorporated too well (like the list of places around Vstrechny, which are not technically "related" to Vstrechny itself) do not really belong.

On the other hand, I believe you are adding these lists for their navigational value. But, come to think of it, is it really important to the reader to know which other rural localities are around Vstrechny? Those which are important to Vstrechny can (and should) be mentioned in the article's body, but the rest of them just happen to be close. What are your thoughts? Do you have other reasons to believe these lists add value?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:22, October 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Ezhiki, I understand your points about a list of settlements in the same district not being "related" to the original article in the strict sense, and I was adding them, as you say, for navigational value, following your points about the navigation box. I agree with you from our earlier discussions and from the reverts you have made recently, that you cannot really have a navigation box that covers all rural localities as well, because that would have to be allowed to be applied across all administrative districts which would mean unwieldy boxes for a lot of the more populated areas. The problem as I see it is, once you place perfectly reasonable limits like that on navigation boxes, it is difficult to provide the casual reader with easy access to the full selection of articles available without providing such links to other settlements within the district. The purpose of those links was to inform the reader of the other settlements within the district, since the category links merely provide links to all similar articles within that category, not district.


 * To me, the see also guidelines are particularly vague and the notion that, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense, seems to be pretty unrestrictive and the way I saw it was that these links provide a useful way of collecting together groups of articles about the same geographical area (so in that sense I would suggest they are related, i.e. Vstrechny is an article about a proportion of the population and the "see also" section provides links to articles on the rest of the population of that district), which would otherwise be a disparate set of stubs. If they were all long articles, I would feel differently about them standing on there own more, but with the best will in the world, the size and importance of many of the settlements means that it is going to be unlikely that anyone will be able to piece together sufficient, verifiable information to make them more than a few paragraphs long.


 * Overall though, I'm not sure whether your arguement about being "related" holds much water. By your rationale, Vstrechny and Omolon are not related simply because they are in the same administrative district, yet the convention set by the navigation boxes states that Bilibinsky and Chukotsky district are related only because they are in the same Okrug. You ask why someone would need to know what other villages were in a given district, I would ask why someone would need to know what all the administrative divisions were in a given Okrug. I am being somewhat tongue in cheek and I appreciate that wikipedia can only go to a certain level of detail, but this is really why I used the see also section, it was a means of supplying that level of detail to the reader without using the navigation box in an informal way that would avoid creating precedants to be followed by other articles.


 * I would be happy to remove the red links for now, to keep in line with the guidelines, I don't think it adds any value simplyto have a list of other settlements. If you really feel that the links in the settlement articles should go I think we should get a bit of concensus from the wp:russia guys, though I do think the links to settlements in the district articles are necessary as it is the existence of a population in a given district that allows the district itself to exist.


 * P.S. sorry if I added back those links you had removed, when I saw it today I thought it was just one article where I had forgotten to put them in in the first place!Fenix down (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would disagree that Vstrechny and Omolon have the same relation within the district as Bilibinsky and Chukotsky Districts have within the okrug. With the districts, the unifying concept is "administrative divisions"; i.e., the okrug is divided into certain districts, which  we list.  With the rural localities, however, no such unifying concept exists&mdash;the districts are not "divided" into rural localities, they just happen to contain them because they lie on the territory the district covers.  It's probably too academic of a distinction, but still...
 * Anyhoo, that said, here's another idea for you to ponder on. As I (think I) mentioned before, we normally list all rural localities of a district in the article about that district (case in point).  So, how about instead a long list of rural localities in the "see also" section we simply add a link to the list in the district article?  It would be there for readers to find, we won't have to create a far-fetched and/or overloaded nav template which simply lists all rural localities, the "see also" section would remain of manageable size, the red links problem (mentioned in WP:SEEALSO) would be solved as well (it's better to have a complete list than a list of the links that happen to be blue at the moment), not to mention it is easier to maintain one list than a dozen copies scattered across various articles.  Would you see it as a reasonable compromise?  Of course, if you have other ideas, I'm quite open to hear them out :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:32, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea, a link to the sub section of the Bilibinsky District article that contains the list of settlement at the end of the settlement article does seem like the most concise way to do it, I've certainly found it a bit of a pain when I suddenly realised I missed a settlement out of a list and had to go through all the articles on one district changing them. I'll make the changes, though feel free to help out if you wish!!Fenix down (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you could start on that list, I can later go through it, verify, and source it. Or, if you prefer and if you can access this document, you are welcome to do it yourself.  Please let me know either way.  Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:43, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Mys Peek/Pevek
In Uelen you have Dezhnevo south of Cape Pevek. I think you mean west of Cape Peek, aka Cape Nunagmin. Dankarl (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Petit Fute book says south, but I am happy for you to change it if you feel you have a more accurate source (and it would be good to get some additional sources in there). Could you tell me where you have got the information about the Chukchi name for the cape from. I'm not questioning it, just I would be interested in reading it! Also, are you saying that it is Cape Peek, or is Cape Pevek another name, given that Petit Fute is a Russian book translated into french and then English, I wouldn't be surprised if a little error like this crept into the text.Fenix down (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's what I've got.
 * Office of Coast Survey. Historical map and chart project. Office of Coast Survey, NOAA, USA.. http://historicalcharts.noaa.gov/historicals/historical_zoom.asp. Query title keyword (Bering in this case); select preview for year wanted (1938 is good in this case). Click desired location to enlarge and center.  I am taking Port Dezhnev on the chart to be Dezhnevo. This is my best source for direction and only source for the native name.  USCGS often has non-standard spellings, probably phonetic, for native villages.
 * Google search for Mys Pevek only turns up the Chukchi sea cape NE of Pevek. Search for Mys Peek mostly gives the cape South (across the peninsula) from Uelen ie the one we're talking about or puts it the same latitude but E longitude; one page gave Peyek as an alternative transliteration.
 * Is this enough or do we need more?Dankarl (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need anything else, seems like a perfectly reliable source to me, I agree we need to be careful with the transliterations to make sure they conform to the correct romanisation but that's all. i'll get on it! Fenix down (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Allow me

 * Thanks bud, much appreciated! Thanks also for all your help with the minutiae of Chukotka and wikipedia in general, it's been a big help. As an aside, could you clarify what I should do with the template you suggested with regards to the see also section, please. Ta! Fenix down (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, very welcome. As for your question, I envisioned a list of rural localities being placed in the article about the district (much like it's done in the Giaginsky District article).  Then, the list in the "See also" section in the articles about all those rural localities would be replaced with something like *List of inhabited localities in Bilibinsky District .  Same would be done for the localities in other districts.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:30, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * that's what I thought, I assume the link to the document is a reference I should use at the head of the section? Fenix down (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not sure I understood the question, but here's an example. If in the Bilibinsky District article you add a section called "List of rural localities", then you can link to that section like this&rarr; Bilibinsky District .  If the section will be called differently, then simply replace the part that follows the "#" sign in the link.  Does that answer your question (and was that your question? :))—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:53, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's the question I was asking, thanks! I'll try to get that done today, as its a bit of a slack friday at work! Fenix down (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Just please please please do not call those sections "lists of settlements".  A "settlement" in Russia is either a type of a rural locality, or an urban-type settlement, or a municipal settlement.  Having villages and selos under "settlements" is a great misnomer (unless your intent is to list municipal settlements).  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:59, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Good job you got in before I had changed them all to "settlements". What would be the best word? Localities? Or should I say "list of towns, urban-type settlements and villages"? Fenix down (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The most consistent approach is to use "inhabited localities" for all kinds of places ("localities" would work, too, although it's not as consistent). They are, in turn, subdivided into urban localities (cities, towns, and urban-type settlements) and rural localities (villages, selos, settlements [of rural type], stanitsas, auls, and a few dozen of other different types).  The exact hierarchy and grouping are defined by each federal subject individually so there will be differences from one federal subject to another.  The urban/rural localities grouping, however, is used in each federal subject; it's when you drill down further when you start seeing differences.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:15, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers Ezhiki, I think, given the paucity of localities in each category in Chukotka, it would probably be best simply to have one section in each district article entitled "List of inhabited localities". Fenix down (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Pilgyn
I don't know what Pil'gyn means (if it means "lagoon", is it in the Chukchi language? definitely not in Russian though), but it is most certainly not a populated place of any sort. There is a river by that name (albeit in Beringovsky District, not in Shmidtovsky) and a few straits that have "Pilgyn" as the part of the name. The only place with the name remotely similar to this is Meynypilgyno, but it is also in Beringovsky District.

The coordinates in the article point to a non-descript location in the sea, and the external links provided aren't very helpful either. If some real place was meant when this article was created, it's impossible to pinpoint given the information available. My recommendation would be to prod this article&mdash;if someone can shed any light as to the intent of that page, they'll have seven days to do so. Otherwise, the article should go as in its present form it's hardly of any use. I'd normally ask the creator first, but he seems to be inactive since July.

Thanks for catching this!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:53, November 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * I had another look at the coordinates, and they are wrong, but using the aerial view provided by multimap reveals a settlement called Pyl'gyn, a little way from the original coordinates, by the large lagoon found to the south-east of Leningradsky. It is also nearby other "settlements" called Pil'khyn and Pil'khykay, all of which share the same route. I still don't think that the article as it is is anything more than a dictionary definition of the word Pil'gyn (which I had taken to be Chukchi for lagoon because of the apostrophe in the middle of the word and the context). If it ever was a settlement, it looks like one of the many along the coast which were closed in soviet times ands the people collectivised. What are the rules for ghost town notability, or shall I still just prod it? Fenix down (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just go ahead and prod it. We can't prove it's a ghost town, and I was unable to locate anything at all when searching for a populated place by that name; not even a stray mention.  It could have been some seasonal location for fishing, mining, or whatever, but, again, we have no sources to support such a statement.  If sources turn up later, the article can always be re-created; in its present condition it is of no use whatsoever.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:25, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Fute
Hi there! In some articles you started, the Fute citations have "ff" following the page number. I deleted it in the Mys Shmidta article because I assumed it was a typo, but I see that in the Beringovsky article you also added "ff" after the page name. Is this of some significance or indeed just a typo? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:48, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright Ezhiki, how's it going? As far as i understood it, "f" or "ff" indicates that the reference straddles a page, or in "ff"'s case two pages, as here: ff. I used it where the book would make reference to something and then refer to it again a little later. In the articles, I have taken both parts and condensed them for the article. I'd obviously use two references if I was using two sources and even two if the references were in completely seperate parts of the same book, but when they're from the same part of the same section of the same chapter, I thought this best, especially as google books links only to chapters, I felt this was the least cumbersome way to indicate two closely related points taken from the same part of a chapter. Do you think ibid. and then the next page a better way? I'm happy to change them if wiki referencing is done differently to the way I have. Fenix down (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I had no clue! I've never seen "ff" used anywhere at all.  As for our citing conventions, I believe those favor page ranges, and the usage of ibid is explicitly discouraged in some guideline (I can't recall offhand which one, but can probably find it for you if you are interested).  Thanks for the explanation, though.  Looks like I learned something new today :)  I'll restore "ff" in Mys Shmidta and will leave it alone from now on.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:36, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Uploading files
I am quite lousy with the copyrights, but am fairly positive that each such image will need to be reviewed on its own merit. Maps would not normally fall under the "official documents" category, unless they are included as an appendix to a legislative document (a law, a resolution, a decree, etc.). Stamps probably don't either, although I can't say for sure (this one, for example, is claimed to fall under that exact exemption you cited). Can you tell me in more detail where the images you have in mind come from? I'll be able to do a more targeted research then. For stamps, are they of Soviet issue? If so, which year? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:45, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the problem, they haven't come from official sources. If I remember correctly, the three or so maps I have are all taken from dead-cities.ru such as here: Aliskerovo, or foto.chukotken.ru such as here: Mys Shmidta and here: Keperveem and a stamp featuring an Amguema class ship here: Amguema.
 * Given that all the maps are clearly old, it would seem fair to assume that they were the work of a government department rather than an enterprising individual and so would appear to fulfil the first criterion in the license cited as I'm not sure why a map produced by a government department would not by definition be an official document, though perhaps I am misunderstanding the terminology. Also, could you clarify the copyrights associated with the foto.chukotken.ru site. It seems to me that at the bottom of each webpage they simply ask you to reference the website if you use one of the pictures, but I assume I am right in thinking that we would require express consent from the owner of each photo to use any (which is a shame as they have a large number of extremely interesting historical pictures of the area). Fenix down (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While I understand that these maps are most likely indeed quite old (and produced by the government entities), we nevertheless cannot just assume it. Our licensing requirements ask for very specific information, which is not optional.  Dead-cities website, for example, is a work of just one individual, and while we can contact him and ask where the maps came from, we can't just lift them from his website and use here.
 * As for the things produced by the government, it can get complicated. Russian Post, for example, operates using the government assets and must pass its profits on to the government, yet it is not a government entity per se (it's a unitary enterprise).  How this affects the copyright status of postal stamps, I have no clue (I am not a lawyer), but it looks that our practices lean to classifying them under the copyright exemption clause.  Maps are often produced under a government contract which, again, means that we need to consider where exactly each map came from.
 * Sorry for all the vagueness, but like I said, I'm no expert on this matter. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to ask for an advice on the Commons?  I could speculate until cows come home, but I don't suppose it's going to help you any :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:31, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * As for foto.chukotken.ru, I believe we can use their photos just fine; as per the disclaimer. It's probably going to be under fair use (which means that the pictures will need to be uploaded to en_wiki, not to the Commons).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:36, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, I have added one photo to the Mys Shmidta article here: File:Mys Shmidta.jpg, as a sort of test, since I didn't want to do loads and find that I had made mistakes, plus I think any rational / license for one photo from the site will be very similar to any other. If you have a chance to have a look at it, any comments on the rationale and license would be useful, particularly the license, as I couldnt really find one I felt suited the picture or source. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really have anything to add to the rationale you provided; if I were to upload this myself, I'd probably end up with something very similar. I don't think we should be uploading more of these images just yet; let this one sit there for a couple weeks at least.  Hopefully someone will comment on its status.  Or, you could post an inquiry at WP:MCQ so someone more knowledgeable than us two copyright duffers would look at it and enlighten us :)  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:29, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Actually, I went ahead and posted a question at WP:MCQ. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:41, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ezhiki, I have added my bit to the arguement, especially as I don't agree with what the respondant said following your query. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens! Fenix down (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with him either, although I think he's right on the money about the image being replaceable. It may be real hard to get there for foreigners, but the picture can be snapped by a local resident or a visiting Russian.  Still easier said than done, but certainly not impossible.  An "irreplaceable" image would be one to illustrate something going on there in, say, the 1960s.  For the purpose of illustrating the settlement itself, however, any image would be considered replaceable.
 * Where I disagree with him is in the interpretation of the disclaimer. It in no way, shape, or form prohibits re-using the pictures; it merely requires a backlink if any of the pictures are used.  Granted, the wording is still on the vague-ish side, but not terribly so.
 * Anyway, I'll look into the possibility of writing to the site owners and asking for an explicit permission. Won't happen this week, though.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. By the way, there are a few CC-licensed pictures of Chukotka that could be useful for us on Flickr (example).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:14, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be great if you had time to contact the wbesite sometime, if we can get permission then it will make things a lot easier. Unfortunately, I don't think we can use any of the pictures by the guy you suggested. Although he has a given his work a creative commons license, it is one of the ones that it states here: is not acceptable, which is a shame. Fenix down (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I missed that; it's too bad :( Anyway, I'll try finding time after the holidays to contact the chukotken guy.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:17, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks bud, as an aside, do you know whether photos taken by the National Ocean Service (NOAA) would count as available for use as made by a US govt dept, as I have found some pics of Yannrakinot and Yttygran Island here: PBS website? Fenix down (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you keep asking me copyright-related questions, eh? :) The way I see it, if NASA's pictures are in public domain, and NASA is an agency of the US Government, then the pictures of the National Ocean Service should be in public domain as well, because it is an office of the NOAA, which is an agency of the US Department of Commerce, which, in turn, is a department of the US Government.  So unless there is something screwy in this setup I don't see, I'd say National Ocean Service pics should be available for us to use.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:04, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * And this confirms the theory :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:08, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, there's so many templates and help pages and the like I can never find what I'm looking for. I'll upload some of the pics. I assume they go on wiki commons rather than enwiki? Fenix down (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Commons are the best for this. While there's nothing preventing you from uploading them to en_wiki, it just means extra hassle for someone who will eventually be transferring them to the Commons, and they can't be used by other wikis in the meanwhile.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:16, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

File:Mys Shmidta.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mys Shmidta.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is purely a pro forma notice, since you are discussed only as a good faith editor who is not engaging in disruptive behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nenets AO
Ah, Nenetsia should be easy enough. In terms of the number of the inhabited localities, it's the smallest federal subject in Russia. Its divisions are pretty simple, too, although you can't really compare them to the divisions of Arkhangelsk Oblast. Each federal subject has the right to set its own system of administrative divisions, and Nenetsia, while being an autonomous okrug in jurisdiction of Arkhangelsk Oblast, can nevertheless do it independently of the oblast.

The administrative divisions of Nenetsia match its municipal divisions one-to-one (with one exception), which should make things easier for you. The AO is administratively divided into eighteen selsoviets, the territory of the town of Naryan-Mar, and the territory of the urban-type settlement of Iskateley. Naryan-Mar is municipally incorporated as Naryan-Mar Urban Okrug, while the rest of the territory is municipally incorporated as Zapolyarny Municipal District (this is the exception I mentioned above&mdash;there is no Zapolyarny Administrative District, although OKATO does list the municipal district as such for convenience). The municipal district is divided into eighteen rural settlements (corresponding to the eighteen selsoviets) and one urban settlement (corresponding to the territory of the urban-type settlement of Iskateley). So, to answer your question, you should be able to use this without any problems; just be careful with the terminology you use and remember that our articles are primarily about the administrative units; municipal units are merely mentioned within those articles (the Russian Wikipedia does it the other way around).

I would also recommend against creating separate articles about either selsoviets or rural settlements, and concentrate on the individual rural localities instead. There really isn't much one can say about any of those selsoviets which cannot be said in the articles about individual villages. Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 16, 2010; 13:51 (UTC)
 * On the first one, an article titled Zapolyarny Municipal District will be just fine. We do put administrative divisions first, but when there isn't one, then obviously an article about a municipal division will have to do.
 * On the second one, I wouldn't feature such a list in the NAO article, but rather re-do Administrative divisions of Nenets Autonomous Okrug to include both administrative and municipal divisions. I envision the end result to look something along the lines of list of administrative and municipal divisions of Adygea (see especially the Overview of administrative and municipal divisions section).
 * Does this answer your questions? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 16, 2010; 14:22 (UTC)
 * Any time :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 16, 2010; 14:28 (UTC)
 * It's a settlement (of rural type). To the best of my knowledge, it was never explicitly demoted, but the law on the administrative division adopted in 2005, which replaced the law of 1996, no longer refers to it as an urban-type settlement (while it still does with regards to Iskateley).  You can safely call it a "settlement".  The most recent document that refers to Amderma as UTS I could find is dated October 2004.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 16, 2010; 16:18 (UTC)
 * Well, keep in mind that you are writing about the municipal district, so the municipal aspect is going to be the distinct difference from the materials about NAO as a whole (that, and the exclusion of the Naryan-Mar-specific info, of course). And yes, I know, it does not leave much to work with, but considering that the district was only formed a few years ago that's to be expected.
 * All in all, I agree that the economy/infrastructure sections would better be moved to the NAO article; and the district article can supply a very brief summary (preceded with a Main link to the NAO's economy section).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 20, 2010; 13:25 (UTC)
 * I don't know how happy it would make you to learn this (I guess it would depend on the amount of work you've already invested into this), but on April 14, 2010, the law on the administrative-territorial division of NAO was amended to explicitly call Zapolyarny an administrative district. I've just learned this today. The district does, of course, still retain its municipal status as well.  I'd say as soon as that amendment takes effect, a move is going to be in order, eh? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 21, 2010; 17:36 (UTC)
 * I believe it will. Do you have a source for the move, so i can add it to relevant articles? When do you think the law will come into effect? Thanks for letting me know.  Fenix down (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The effective date of most Russian laws is tied in one way or another to the law's publication date. This amendment, for example, takes effect on the day of its official publication.  However, this date was not specified last week when I found out about the amendment.  Today, however, I found that the law was in fact published on the same day (April 19), so feel free to do the moves right away.  I've also created the ref template for you: RussiaAdmMunRef/nen/admlaw (please use  (to ref the structure) or  (to ref the individual inhabited localities) when including it in the articles).  Let me know if there's anything else you need.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 24, 2010; 13:34 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, i have changed the Zapolyarny article. You may wish to review to make sure I have done things right. I have assumed that things like the flag and coat of arms are now used as the flag and coat of arms for the administrative district for example. Fenix down (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, administrative divisions do not have their own symbols such as flags, coats, etc.; only the municipal entities can have them. However, since we combine both the administrative and the municipal aspects in one infobox, having the images of the flag and coa is just fine.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 24, 2010; 19:04 (UTC)

Cape Dezhnev pics
I agree the Dezhnevo historical pictures are a bit far afield. I think what I'm working toward is eventually having articles on the major historical Yupik and Chukchi villages but that's a long way off. I don't think most US readers would look in Chukotsky district. Do you know how to link to galleries or pages in commons? Dankarl (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC) One more thing is going on here, regarding shifts in geographic terminiology. When a historical source (1900 +/- 25 years) speaks of a schooner or revenue cutter calling at East Cape, they often mean Dezhnevo, sometimes Naukan. Since Naukan had no anchorage and little beach it was not visited directly as often. I'm still trying to figure out whether Uelen ("Whalen") was ever meant; it is also named directly. Anyway if a reader of such a source looks up East Cape they are redirected to Cape Dezhnev. Dankarl (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Google translate
I'm happy to report that I've incorporated google translate into Cite Russian law, so you no longer need to add those links manually. Now as long as a valid link is passed to the ru_url parameter, an appropriate google translate link will automatically be generated for the en_url parameter. Ain't that swell, eh? :)

That said, if you notice any bugs related to this new feature, please let me know; I'll be on it ASAP. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 4, 2010; 22:35 (UTC)


 * Sweet, does this mean it is the same for all russian law templates, so when I start the Nenetsia articles I will only need to input the relevant ru_url? Will keep my eyes peeled for bugs, not that I expect to find any! Fenix down (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, all those RussiaAdmMunRefs and RussiaBasicLawRefs rely on Cite Russian law to work, so once ru_url is supplied, en_url will be generated automatically in all of them.
 * As for the bugs, I too don't expect any, but one never knows&mdash;those pesky bugs always show up where you least expect them!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 5, 2010; 15:20 (UTC)

Making Mathematics Count
I added a page reference (622) to a discussion of i.a. Smith's report, Making Mathematics Count, which should make the article a stub, imho. Would you please review your "notability marker". Thanks for your attention. Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing is, Notability_(books) suggests a little more is needed than one reference, especially as this seems simply to be a departmental report. Academic books are difficult to judge on WP, but since by definition there are thousands of academic reports published in pretty much every field every year, which means citing one, doesn't really prove anything, and I would suggest that you would definitely need more information to indicate that it influenced UK educational policy, particularly as the ref given is not a freely available source. I didn't prod the article, but to be honest, I'm not sure how notable it is. If you look at the category you have put the article in I don't see any other reports on mathematical education. An outline of exactly how it influenced mathematical education in the UK would go a lot further towards establishing notability than simply adding a ref that most people won't be able to check. Fenix down (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You must have misread the report, to think it was a departmental report. (It could be more like Vanneovar Bush's report suggesting the National Science Foundation!) This was the government-appointed commission of inquiry reviewing U.K. science (this was just part of a larger effort chaired by Gareth Jones), with the support of the leading academics of the U.K. and the professional societies. I quote the discussion by the former president of the RSS discussing his report on the future of statistics, particularly at the universities; Fred Smith's report was commissioned by the RSS. Adrian Smith's commission has a special legal standing in parliamentary systems, like the U.K. or Sweden, whose authority is hard to understand for Americans (like myself some years back). Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it is an inquiry held under the auspices of the Department for Education and Skills. I admit this puts it above a standard report, but the article should show much more about the influence the report has had in the last 8 years. How has it effected maths teaching, where has it been cited in other works that have affected maths education? The article needs more of this to show its notability. At the moment it's just a statement of what the article is and that it had an influence. If you state what this influence was, how widespread it was, what its lasting effects were, then that would be more than enough to establish notability and provide a more useful article to the reader. That's why I added the notability tag really, as it is at the moment, someone without prior knowledge of subject is incapable making an assessment as to the reports intrinsic value. Fenix down (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. However, I hope that you let it live a little longer. I just wanted to provide a link to the report for statistical education, and then saw a red link at Adrian Smith's page, and thought that I would write a stub. I don't plan to write more on it, but I can put a Brit Statistics stub note on it, which may attract help. I hope it survives its infancy. Thanks!Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope so, I'm not campaigning for its deletion or anything, it just needs to be expanded, that's all. Fenix down (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your help. I did ask a couple statisticians who have written about UK matters to look at the page. I also am calmed that (so far) nobody has deleted Our Common Future, which has no outside reference, either! ~;) Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mati Fusi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nauru national football team (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:2012-13 I-League
I see what you mean but we do have an agreement here (me and other I-League editors). Last season we (The Indian football editors) wanted to add the Foreigners table, Goalkeepers table and Personell and Kits section. Now last season we did not do the goalkeepers section at all. We tried the personell table but that did not work out in the end due to vandalism and many clubs not being updated and we did the foreigners section. Now that is when I decided to do all this. And that is when I went in agreement with some of the other main Indian football editors on here that I would go through all 14 I-League pages individually and revamp them all, rewrite them all, update every single player and make some templates and categories. And while doing that I shall fill in a Personell and Kits section and Foreigners Table. Now all that takes a long time. I started revamping my first club, Air India, in May and I only finished all this last week. A lot has changed and patience had been running out so one of the editors unhid the foreigners table thinking it was ready, when it was not. There were players that were not even on the teams anymore. And the way the table is structured is horrible, it should be based on when the player joined the club. Now the goalkeepers thing was not referenced and hard to keep up, had to get rid of it. As for me owning the page, well I would not put it like that. I do see where you are coming from but that is probably because when I undo edits its because they make a page inconsistent with others and all that but I will never assume ownership over any page and if that is the case then... do whatever.

Also, please, I rather not go back to that old time in July where my wiki career went on a pause for a stupid reason. I was an idiot then who found a small amount of time to edit on wikipedia and that happened. I want that to never EVER FUC*ING HAPPEN AGAIN! And I rather you not talk to me about this again. I already am still a little pissed at that statement back in June and I rather not go back their. Now if you want to go ahead and patrol me like my mother and make my life on here a living hell then go ahead. Do what you want. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh and don't worry, I will not revert a third-time on the List of I-League hat-tricks article but do look at it for me. Does it look right? I would think not. That is also a major reason I undid the edit. Fine add it, but add it in the proper format please. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Tomba Singh
Hey mate, just wanted to let you know that I have added Tomba Singh back into the Churchill Brothers template (you had earlier removed him - reason being that their was no proof of him still playing for Churchill). The reason I have added him back is because, despite no evidence on his page, he was included in the starting line-up for Churchill Brothers for their first match of the I-League against Dempo S.C.. Here is the match-report as proof. He even got an assist in that match. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * no problem dude i did wonder however whether this was a different player under the same name as the nft page had him playing up to 2008 but no more after that. happy to leave him in if you are sure. Fenix down (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, ya it is weird how that happens. Well the way I see it is that the NFT website did not update his stats. NFT says that he was born on 3 April 1982. Soccerway (who say that he is currently with Churchill) say that Tomba Singh was born on 3 April 1982. And if you go the the Churchill Brothers page on Goal.com and you click Tomba Singh you will find a player with that exact same birth date. Its freaky really. And of course the ever unreliable Churchill Brothers website gives me this... . Also this press release about Tomba signing for Churchill says the "experienced" Tomba. Whether that means anything. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds the same player to me then dude! Good spot. Fenix down (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 2000 ASFA Soccer League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Renegades


 * 2012 Palau Soccer League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Futa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northern Mariana Islands national football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob James (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Denny he
No worries, but I'm just curious why you didn't flag Denny he for speedy deletion when you cleaned it up. Am I missing something? — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 18:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I was using AWB and I guess I qas a little too quick to press save and overlooked it! Fenix down (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mount Everest Nepal


The article Mount Everest Nepal has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable football team.

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 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 will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2007 A-Division (Bhutan), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Racing Club (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Mount Everest Nepal for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mount Everest Nepal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mount Everest Nepal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2004 Prime Minister's Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Champassak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tonbridge Angels F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cambridge City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Dead-end infection for deletion
Kindly see the talk:Dead-end infection page regarding your Nomination of Dead-end infection for deletion. Thanks, --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Bank FC logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Bank FC logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Ulaanbaataryn Mazaalaynuud Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ulaanbaataryn Mazaalaynuud Logo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply
I replied to your post at Talk:Luis Suárez... Starship.paint (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)