User talk:Miyokan/Archive

Congradulations
Nice nick-name :-) As you could see here there's a dibate now on changing some things at the image. I right now their make shure that during the argument they wont decid on somthing crazy like removing Stalingrad or the red flag over the reichstag after the Soviet victory in the battle of berlin. M.V.E.i. 08:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Feel free to enter the argument. The thing is if we dont have adiscussion we might come to a situation that we will just revert each other. But must i say, Oberiko (the guy that leads the argument) is a very intelegent and he really tries to make shure it will be balanced. You can freely talk to him and he will have with you a fair discussion. M.V.E.i. 09:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Miyokan sounds cool, where is this nick from? M.V.E.i. 14:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I made it up, it's a play on Mikoyan, the Russian aircraft design bureau :).--Miyokan 15:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User accounts
Hi. I see that you are have 2 accounts. I see that you are in violation of WP:SOCK. You are editing the same articles w/ both accounts. Please separate your accounts and stop editing the same articles (Russia, Aeroflot). You may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject. It just doesn't matter if other people know about it. Thanks. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  09:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops I thought I was in my new account when I edited that Aeroflot page, I don't intend to use my old account


 * I know you don't intend it as you informed some users about it. Well, just pay attention next time to avoid problems. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  09:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Great idea!
Thanks for the new Stalingrad image, i added it. M.V.E.i. 08:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont think that image fits
What we need is an image which includes trenches, we could put that above instead of the current upper-image. That way we'll keep the idea and have a Russian image. The problem is i cant find one anywhere. M.V.E.i. 14:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
A discussion is held in the Axis powers of World War II article talk page. I oppose USSR being in the Controversial cases of relations with the Axis section, while some others support it being in the section. Feel free to state your personal opinion here. M.V.E.i. 18:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

United States
Please discuss reversions on the talk page of the article. Edit warring will not lead to a solution. Try to work out a consensus of what should be presented. If necessary, invite outside comment or seek assistance settling the disagreement. Be well! Vassyana 12:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Luzhniki
I strongly disagree that Luzhniki stadium is less important than the Ice palace. Luzhniki Stadium is a 5 star UEFA stadium that hosted 1980 Summer Olympics and will host 2008 UEFA Champions League Final. It is also the biggest sports stadium in Russia. Luzhniki is definitely the most recognizable sports ground from Russia abroad. --Avala 17:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because Luzhniki is bigger than the Ice Palace does not mean it should replace it. Luzhniki was built in 1956, and is inferior and unimpressive compared to stadiums like the new Wembley Stadium or Allianz Arena, while the Ice Palace is state of the art and built in December 2006 and hosted the 2007 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships. Luzhniki might not even end up hosting the Champions League Final as due to an upcoming review of venues eligible to host the Champions League Final (announced by UEFA President Michel Platini on June 6, 2007) this decision for Luzhniki to host the Final could be reversed, and a stadium with enhanced turnstile and ticketing technology could be chosen instead. It is important to show the newest stadiums in Russia, rather than show the same stadium that has stood for decades.--Miyokan 07:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to a discussion on the Russians talk page
Hello. I started a discussion on the Russians article talk page. Due to the fact that people as i see havent visited it for a long time, every opinion is important and will get attention. The discussion is important for the article. You can find the discussion here:-) Thank you. M.V.E.i. 17:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hhh yo didn't understand
First, Dostoyevski and Tolstoy are irriplaceble. Now to our theme. I propose to make it bigger, turn it from a 8 people to a 12 people image. I propose to add Tziklovski and Koralev (fathers of the world and Soviet space program), Stanislavski (the greatyest theater director ever), and Pushkin. Woman? I propose to change Yesenin to Akhmatova. M.V.E.i. 14:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is how it may look. M.V.E.i. 14:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I love the poettry of Yesenin, he's one of my favorites. BUT the problem with him is he's not known in the world, his something local. The photo should be recognizable to every educated man from every country. Akhmatova is Ukrainian so i replaced her with another woman. Yashin is great, but i chose those who are unique and who are not of the best BUT the best. Models, like, who are they? They are nobody. The trick is to make an image the whole world recognizes, who are really irreplacable. Belive me, i'm experimented with that. Italian people and Belarusian people? Mine images. So are Mordvins. M.V.E.i. 17:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Those who you offered also have license problems. M.V.E.i. 17:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Response
I will replace Chaikovski's image to a new one in a few images, i thought about it to and agree with you.

About Yesenin. I love he's poettry and he's defenitely great BUT, the trick is to place those who are known at the whole world. Yesenin is great But what makes him different from Pushkin? Pushkin is known worldwide, Yesenin is to local. M.V.E.i. 08:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Response
1. Being half Russian is enough to enter the image. 2. Are you diding me? Stanislavski influenced on the theater more then any other director in the world. Tziklovski was the first to develop the pryncyp of baalistic rockets and space flight. Korolyev was the father of the Soviet space program. Tsvetaeve represents the famail element. Belive me, in the world they all are more known then Yesenin. And i know bewcause i talk to people all over the world. YEsenin is someone known only by Russians. M.V.E.i. 09:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice Stanislavski image!
I will upload it an a few minutes. M.V.E.i. 10:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, hello. From the comment above, not sure who uploaded the Stan image now. But I wanted to give you a little nudge towards the commons, because if you upload to that instead, the image is available to other projects ~(maybe you know this already - sorry if so) - there's a Stanislavski category I set up recently there. Thanks, DionysosProteus 15:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You were added as co-author
Since two of the images of the new version vere offered by you, i added you as co-author on the image-page :-) Hope you don't mind. M.V.E.i. 10:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks--Miyokan 10:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your great!
This image is just perfect! M.V.E.i. 10:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

3RRR is in effect
Hello Miyoken.

3RR is in effect on the World War II article. I'm assuming that you were simply not informed of this, and for that I apologize. Please do not revert the article without going through the talk page first though. Oberiko 01:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Moscow Military District
Hi Miyokan, as you are a Russian language speaker, I would like to kindly ask you to do a service for the Moscow Military District article. Could you please translate the names in the Commanders 1945-91 subsection? Thanks and best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 09:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There. --Miyokan 10:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Miyokan. I was the one who inserted those and didn't finish translating them. Also noticed your addition of the new Defence Minister's offer to resign, with the RIAN source- good addition. But unfortunately you didn't add the tag to the bottom of the article, so it doesn't link to any footnote section. Thought you might want to know. Cheers Buckshot06

Aeroflot
Hi Miyokan, I was wondering if you would be interested in collaborating with me in order to bring the Aeroflot article up to good article standard and then proceed to get it up to featured status. I have some ideas on what is needed to bring the articles up to this standard, and also a lot of details on history and the like, but would be good to work in collaboration with another likeminded editor. If interested, I have set up a sandbox at User:Russavia/Aeroflot and we can use User talk:Russavia/Aeroflot to discuss the progress of collaboration and get the article up to scratch, before releasing it in the main article space. As you are probably aware there are not too many Russian featured articles on WP, and there should be more. Would be interested in hearing from you. Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 08:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian Ground Forces
I think if you take a look at the history page you'll see that I've been adding references, tags, and removing non GF information from there for a while. But while I've studied the RGF academically, I know nothing more about the UGF than stuff I've read on the net. Why don't you- you can read all the Ukr-lang and Rus-lang info, which I can't. Buckshot06 09:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Coordinator announcement on Red Army renaming
Hi Miyokan, I would like to announce you that your renaming of the Red Army article into "Soviet Army" has been reverted, on the reason that the Army of the Soviet Union had the official designation "Red Army". Also, the most common and often used designation for it, is "Red Army", so I consider this renaming quite innapropiate. I also consulted user:Buckshot06 on this - which is a truely expert in Military of the Soviet Union topics - and he shared my opinion (the WikiProject Military History Lead Coordinator, user:Kirill Lokshin, is also kept in touch with this matter). In the future, before you make such important changes, please discuss/propose them on the talk page. Thanks for understanding and best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 15:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Belarus
Though I know we do not agree on everything, thanks for the edits at Belarus. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I dug through the history of the article and I did find an independence period photo (1988). I hope that is suitable. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Poster Defend Moscow
I was wondering what your rational was for reverting the higher quality image of the Battle of Moscow poster I uploaded,. The image I uploaded is a better scan, with the correct colors and does not have the severe jpeg aritfacts the other scan has. It is also properly cropped, as you can see the the end of the rifle the soldier is holding, while in the other scan it is cut off. Thanks. --Mad Max 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Russian translation
Hi, do you understand Russian? Can you tell me what this sentence means:

Thanks/спасибо! ALTON  .ıl  01:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "His tremendous musical sensitivity was noted by relatives, and by the autumn of 1868, he was defined in a junior class at the Moscow Conservatory."--Miyokan 02:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Does that mean he started attending the school? If you have extra time, it'd be nice to have a fluent speaker go over the facts in Anatoliy Brandukov, especially what happens in the middle of his life. ALTON  .ıl  03:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it means he started attending it.--Miyokan 06:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Miyokan, do you feel like doing another military translation? ru:150-я стрелковая дивизия's just been established in Russian, and while user:Bogdan has been asked to do it, his userpage is showing he's pretty tired out for the moment and he's not editing much. I just worry that if I try and run it through a machine translation I'll make errors. Hope your work on re-FAing Russia is proceeding, if slowly. Buckshot06 03:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Miyokan, thanks for your msg (even if no). I see you're slowing working through the FA process with Russia. Are there any parts you'd like specific help with, for sourcing or re-writing? Buckshot06 15:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

article about Belarus
you said "surrounded by NATO members except Russia and Ukraine- then it's not surrounded at all is it" and deleted the part about NATO. What's about Poland and the Baltic states? you know, we are not completely surrounded by Russia ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EL GhouL (talk • contribs) 08:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, NATO members Poland and the Baltic states border Belarus, but the Russian and Ukrainian borders to Belarus are huge. Look at the map of the bordering countries, Poland and the Baltic states only make up roughly 2/5ths of the borders of Belarus. How can you say that Belarus is surrounded by NATO members when more than half of its borders are made up by non-NATO members?--Miyokan 09:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so your main concern was the wording. Then you could have changed the word instead of deleting this part. Anyway, it was your choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EL GhouL (talk • contribs) 22:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sikorsky
After a short research in Google, i found that infact only some of Igor Sikorsky's bllod was Polish and Ukrainian, and most of it was Russian (not talking about the fact that he himself considered himself Russian). I also stated those things on the talk page of the article, so feel free to state your opinion there. You also could help by finding more references and links to support that (not that i didnt give links, it's just that more of them might help). There are also problems with people not understanding that when he was born Kiev was Russia and not Ukraine. Thank you for you contribution to the topic so far! No Free Nickname Left 11:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

1997 European Team Chess Championship
You are correct that in the 1997 European Team Chess Championship both the Russian and English teams had 22.5 points, but our information indicates that the English team won the gold medal based on tie-break. Quale 19:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Russia article
Hi, Miyokan

You are doing a great job on Russia article. Regardless whether the article will get a features status or not great improvement of a highly-visible article is a very good thing. There are many controversies connected to this article. Please do not get your self fully occupied with a revert war and at any rate please obey WP:3RR. Never do more than three reverts in an article except reverting a clear, simple vandalism. To be on the safe side better avoid doing more than two reverts and always use some form of WP:DR if the disputes continues for more than a couple of days Alex Bakharev 09:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Russia, Sandbox
copied from my talk page:
 * You could have saved original page there first, and later save the changed page, so it would have been easier to check the diffs. Suva Чего? 17:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I have been thinking now you mentioned culture: should a chapter on culture of Russia not include a list of Russian holidays, particularly the very Russian ones: Christmas, the day of national unity, Men's day, Women's day, Tanya's day, the day of the teacher, the day of knowlege? Silly yes, I am proposing to make this longer ... Keep up the good work! --Paul Pieniezny 20:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Maly theatre, Moscow confusion
Hello. I'm gathering material together to create a little article on the Maly Theatre, Moscow, and I'm a little confused, so I wondered whether you might have a little time to help me clear something up? I don't speak/read Russian, which is probably where I'm going wrong. My draft scribblings are here.

I'm confused about when the theatre was created. I realise there was a company first, then the building came later. But when was the company set up?

The babel-fish translation of the Maly's own history page on their website seems to imply it was the Imperial decree in 1756 that founded the company, along with Moscow Uni (although the Wikipedia article for the uni says 1755, so that's odd), as does a Russian news-page saying they're celebrating 250yr anniversary. However, all the sources in books in English that I can find - Cambridge Guide to Theatre, Oxford Companion to Theatre say it was founded in 1805 or 1806. The new page about celebrating anniversary says it's the oldest professional theatre in Russia, but the actors were students at the Uni, which suggests amateur. Brockett's History of Theatre says 1805 when the crown purchased 74 serf actors; so I don't get how the students and serfs could be one company. I realise that all the theatres came under control of the government then, but it's a bit unclear how this worked. Then they got a building in 1824 (on this, the sources agree). From then on, it becomes first the House of Shchepkin then the House of Ostrovsky, and the sources settle down and start to agree with one another.

I'm leaving this note on Ghirlandajo's page too. If you have time to look at it for me, I'd be grateful. The web sources in Russian are here:


 * Russian Wikipedia article (in Russian)
 * the Maly Theatre's website (in Russian)
 * Maly celebrates anniversary
 * Russian theatre history chronology

Many thanks, DionysosProteus 14:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Baltic Fleet
Hi Miyokan, hope your efforts with the Russia FAC are going well. At |my sandbox I am translating some Russian data on the ground forces of the Baltic Fleet but I have a whole paragraph to translate on a motor rifle training regiment, half way though. It's about 50 words- could you translate it for me? Thanks Buckshot06 07:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know which one you mean, could you just post it here. PS here's an article I read yesterday I thought you might find interesting.--Miyokan 00:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Here it is: 609th Separate Training Motor Rifle Regt (Gvardeysk), 720 men, 50 T-72, 100 BTR, 24 БМП, 10 2С1, 1 2С3, D30. Полк стоит здесь три года, готовит для береговых частей всех флотов России специалистов. Механики-водители танков, БТР и БМП, операторы-наводчики. Срок обучения — шесть месяцев, за это время из призывника делают настоящего бойца морской пехоты, береговых артбатарей, обычных сухопутных подразделений, подчиненных флоту-2002

The equipment is easy (BMP, 2S1 etc) but I cannot translate the whole text. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Russia
Hello - I'm new here and I'd like to help you on your project on Russia, to make it an "FA" (I read that's the common term). But I'm not sure how to help, without screwing up anything already done. Can you tell me where you need help, and I'll do my best. Thanks, K a r n a (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for offering to help. Judging from your edits to Russia you are a sophisticated contributor. Ok, the only section that I think is preventing Russia from ascending to FA status is the 'History' section. Questions with its size remain, and I have found it hard to further summarise Russian history, particuarly the Soviet period, and without violating NPOV (ie recently an editor changed the Soviet period to represent the Bolsheviks as only 'bad', so I had to add counterbalances and add various facts that he deliberately left out)
 * I don't know how much you know about Russian history but basically what needs to be done to the history section is it needs to be:
 * Reduced
 * Summarised more concisely while remaining neutral (ie not just representing 'evil' Soviets)


 * I have created a sandbox here to experiment so make edits there before changing the real article.--Miyokan (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've basically learned this stuff via observation, plus a good grip of English. I am very interested in Russia. Please let me know if I screw up - I'll do my best. K a r n a (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've submitted my proposed reduction of the history section in your sandbox page. A key suggestion I wish to make is removing multiple citations - as important as I see they are on Wikipedia, I think the citations are hogging a lot of text-space. If the extra ones are removed through the article, I think the size would fall by quite a bit. K a r n a (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merging the first 3 history periods and concentrating on the more recent eras results in Recentism. Russia's history is long, and equal weight should be given to each period like in the Germany article. I think your idea of removing multiple citations is excellent, as I don't think FA articles have this. I merged the foreign relations and military sections as is done on FA articles India and Australia--Miyokan (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope I'm not pestering you, but I've read some of the "oppose" arguments and I detect a trend - from what I gather from reading WP:NPOV policy, I think most of the neutrality issue comes off in the grammar and usage of words; just using colorful adjectives instead of plainly worded sentences. There are also a bunch of grammar issues. I can try to go through these with a fine comb, but then I can't bug you over each itty-bitty change. What do you want to see done? For example, one disparity is the American vs. British spelling issue. I don't know which is the right one (I've been using American). I can implement a lot of the necessary grammar and wording changes, but I don't want to clash with what you think is right. So if you can let me know what you think should be done over such issues, I can do my best to help. K a r n a (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * By all means, I invite you to go over the grammar issues and change what you think is the 'colourful' wording- improving prose is always a good thing. However, I do not think that doing this will change the votes of user's Folantin and Moreschi, who would like to see the whole history section rewrited with a negative Communism/Bolshevik spin. But do not worry about them. What I would like to see is how much you can stretch your talent of compressing information through grammar based edits in the 'Soviet Russia' and perhaps the 'Imperial Russia' sections, without loss of quality. Perhaps this means a complete rewrite. The smaller the history section gets, the less likely it is to be POV and the less likely people are going to oppose the FA because of its size. I consider the history sections in United States and Germany to be ideal examples of how to write a history section for a country. I will go over your edits and change them if I really disagree with them. With regards to American vs. British spelling-it does not seem to matter which one is used. I myself use British spelling but I have seen a mix on varies pages, including the FA article Germany. If you can pick one or the other and make the rest of the article conform to that style that would be great.--Miyokan (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I think it pays to keep an open mind. I personally feel that there are too many details in what should be generalized sections. For example - the part in Soviet Russia about the extensive social reforms such as divorce rights, abortion rights, etc. I think a more useful summary would be - "the enactment of major economic and social reforms, such as increasing womens rights." I don't think that compromises the positive-negative balance, nor does it de-emphasize the importance of such events. The early history sections talk of various tribal wars, etc. that can be summarized as "this period saw major tribal wars and mass migrations of tribes across Western Russia." Keep the names of the tribes, the details of individual rulers, etc. for the History of Russia article. I've learned this summary skill the hard way in my English classes :) I think I'll go ahead with such changes and let you see the finished product. If you feel they aren't right, then please change them without taking offense, for I feel the true importance of Russia's history should be presented, and to do so doesn't necessarily need so much detail or length. Reading the comments, I think Tony1 has the best points. K a r n a (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I now feel that the sections "Imperial Russia" and "Soviet Russia" are now as compact as they should be in content. I don't think we can cut any content from them. The cutting should be in the early history sections, which I shall undertake now, without diminishing their importance. K a r n a (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've detected an issue in the "Economy" and "Demographics" sections - there is an imbalance in content in lack of information regarding Russia's challenges, such as poverty levels, housing and infrastructural problems. I know that Russia has done well in this decade, but I've also read of its problems with poverty, crime, corruption, state monopolies, Communist-era housing for working classes, etc. You haven't mentioned stuff like the controversy against the oligarchs and exactly what problems the shrinking population is creating (shrinking labor force) etc. I saw only one sentence discussing Russia's problems. I think that's the sort of thing some of the critics mean - a true balance in content; discuss the problems with the successes. K a r n a (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Corruption - mentioned in the history section that corruption has seen explosive growth. I remember corruption used to be in the economy section. Do you propose to add it to the economy section? And what information about corruption would you like to see?

Crime - mentioned in the history section that crime has run rampant. I don't know whether crime should be in this article. Most FA country articles do not have a crime section. Granted, they do not have as big a problem with crime, but what kind of information would you like to see regarding crime in Russia in this article, and in what section.

Housing - where do you propose this information would fit in the article. The housing problem fits in with the whole infrastructure problem. What do you want to say about it?

Poverty - what do you want to say about poverty in Russia. The average wage is already listed, that should be a good indication of standard of living as compared to other nations.

Population - I believe the demographics crisis is sufficiently covered. What do you want to say about shrinking labour force? Ageing population could be covered, but worth noting that almost all the developed nations are experiencing ageing populations.

State monopolies - what do you want to say about this?

Oligarchs controversy - what do you want to say about this?

Here is a website you might find interesting. It is the Russian Federal State Statistics Service and it gives Russia in figures on all sorts of aspects including population, public health, crime, etc. --Miyokan (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have the links at the precise moment (and mind you, there definitely are), but in reply to your questions: (1) Housing - how working families in cities like Moscow live in one-room apartments with poor water/electricity supplies, dingy conditions. Most rural areas don't have access not only to benefits of recent growth, but to good amenities, government facilities, resources - rural Russia needs more discussion. (2) The actual poverty rate, where is it prevalent, rich-poor gap. (2) State monopolies - the removal of Khodorkovsky and concentration of state power in media and such industries raised concerns about free-markets, etc. Gazprom's cutting off supplies to Ukraine, using its wealth to provide cradle-to-grave services, influence in politics. (3) Population shrinkage is well covered, so I withdraw that point. (4) Crime and corruption - I remember an article on the clean-up of St. Petersburg before the 300th anniversary summit, which spoke lengths about corruption and crime in bureaucracy, mobs, etc. St. Petersburg was like the most disorderly city until the date. While this article is exhaustively informative, I think the economy section can use such a balance, by keeping the budget/foreign investment data (which takes a 1.5 paras) shorter.

Simply in terms of telling a story, the Economy section bears no mention of Soviet and 1990s-era problems that continue today. I don't think it serious, but it could be the kind of stuff the critics have sought to emphasize. K a r n a (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The note on the Russian constitution on education is repeated in the second paragraph, that is why I decided to remove the first mention. K a r n a (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WW2 template
Hello, I have noticed that you have replaced the montage with the static map of the WW2 combatants. I have reverted your edits because: We already have a map of greater value right under it, The information presented in your map is ambiguous (not necessary because we have a List of Allied powers and axis powers right under it, the same information presented in a map is not necessary), and sure, there are some heated debates over which images to use, but a consensus must be drawn no matter how difficult it is to represent the war in a few images (we can't just say "It's too hard to decide...Hey! let just use a map!" If you don't believe me, you can view American Civil War, World War I, American Revolutionary War, Napoleonic Wars, Korean War, or any other war article (1,2,3, and see that all these have montages because montages most represent a war. Thanks, hope this helps -- Penubag  09:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

CIA factbook
Hi and thanks for your comment. I am not certain what to do, as the CIA Factbooks is imprecise in this matter (which is not a surprise, as Russia is a really big country). They classify it as Northern Asia (the area west of the Urals is considered part of Europe). I added this info into the body of the text. On the map virtually only the European part is visible, so there is no need to alter it - unless there was a need to add a bigger picture, covering also the Asian part of Russia (in that case feel free to do so, but I don't think it is necessary in the article on Eastern Europe, after all). Cheers, Pundit | utter  14:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for your comment. I am not certain what to do, as the CIA Factbooks is imprecise in this matter (which is not a surprise, as Russia is a really big country). They classify it as Northern Asia (the area west of the Urals is considered part of Europe). I added this info into the body of the text. On the map virtually only the European part is visible, so there is no need to alter it - unless there was a need to add a bigger picture, covering also the Asian part of Russia (in that case feel free to do so, but I don't think it is necessary in the article on Eastern Europe, after all). Cheers, Pundit | utter  14:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that they do not say anywhere that Russia is an Eastern European country, nor that the European part of Russia is in Eastern Europe. Yes, it says "the area west of the Urals is considered part of Europe", but it does not say that Russia is considered an Eastern European country or anything about this European area being part of "Eastern Europe". Thus the map is simply wrong when it says "Eastern Europe according to CIA Factbook". As I said, it appears that they are classifing Russia as its own "area" altogether (i.e., Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Central Europe, Southeastern Europe, Russia, Northeastern Europe, etc.) rather than belonging to any of these other "areas" of Europe. De-highlighting Russia from the map is pertinent.--Miyokan (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was following this logic: "Eastern" is a geographical term. Usually referring to the East. Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine are Eastern European. The parts of Russia, which are East from there, but West from its Asian part, and in the same time are European, are therefore Eastern European. However, I understand your factual concerns. I update the article as you asked, following the CIA factbook definitions.  Pundit | utter  14:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Russia shouldn't be highlighted at all. You are assuming that the CIA Factbook classifies the European part of Russia as Eastern European, when it simply does not say that! The fact is that nowhere does the CIA say that Russia is in Eastern Europe, and assuming that the CIA classifies Russia as in Eastern Europe by "following your own logic" is wrong. The added caption you put, "Russia is classified as Northern Asian, only the shown part West of the Urals is called European" is merely telling us which part of Russia is in Europe, and which part of Russia is in Asia - elementary facts which are not disputed nor relevant to the concept of 'Eastern Europe', and it tells us nothing of whether the CIA classifies Russia as part of Eastern Europe.--Miyokan 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read the legend carefully, you'll see that Eastern Europe is in orange, while Russia has a clear disclaimer on its Northern Asian belonging, as well as on its part being European. There is no confusion whatsoever. Remember, that we cannot mislead the readers into thinking that no part of Russia is European, which could be the case if Russia was not in the picture at all. Wikipedia is to educate and provide knowledge - we cannot omit facts that are relevant and important for our users (and I assure you that cutting Russia out would, in my view, cause lots of misunderstandings). The legend clearly distinguishes Russia as not belonging to Eastern Europe according to CIA Factbook, and so does the text of the article. If you disagree, I suggest we ask third party editors for their opinion. Pundit | utter  15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, but to nullify your concerns I changed the first sentence in the image description. I hope this ends our debate and constructively enhances Wiki. cheers Pundit | utter  15:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I slightly changed the Russia caption for clarity. It's been good to have a constructive debate. Thanks.--Miyokan 15:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And thanks to you! It is a pleasure to jointly and constructively develop Wiki. Pundit | utter  15:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I noticed your latest change. In my view it does not do justice to the CIA Factbook. I'll rephrase it once again, but I hope this one will stay longer... Pundit | utter  15:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Russia FAC
Hi Miyokan, saw what happened with the Russia FAC. Um, don't know quite how to say this, but I believe if you were willing to incorporate some less favourable areas into the article, as per user:K a r n a's concerns, it could be ready quite quickly. Anyway, when you're ready to try again, keep in mind WP:REWARD - there's an incentive for Russia/FSU editors to create FA-worthy articles on CIS subjects. Best regards and happy Christmas (for the 7th of January!) Buckshot06 (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi man, some good thoughts. Like the American mafia and the Japanese yakutzia (not sure I spelt this accurately), Russian organised crime has a world wide reach, and should be mentioned as part of the corruption section - just pull it all into one. I well remember my Russian boss back in 2001 claiming the Presidential Administration was funded by three or four organised crime gangs, though he had a habit of exaggeration and I had no idea whether he was right or not. Sources? Take a look at this, in a scholarly journal: http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj04-1/sokolov.htm, written by a former co-worker of mine. Treat it like any other source and cite it, and there you are. Now. Gazprom. Massive, MASSIVE, issue, and I can well understand how you're annoyed by what you see as misrepresentations and false accusations, etc. But without some mention of the issue, it's going to be attacked, by some people during the next FAC, as incomplete. What do you think of the idea of me writing a simple description of the issue, stating the facts as barely as I can describe them without, as best I can, adding any of my own author's viewpoint. Then I can add the Russian viewpoint, and the Western viewpoint - all cited all over the place, and round off by saying its a bitterly controversial topic, and leave it there. Just tell me which sandbox or other place you want me to put my draft into, and you can see it as it develops. What do you think? Finally, housing. Everything I ever read about Russia development (or Ukraine, for that matter, probably the whole FSU) has the relevant government promising to build thousands of houses. It's a major adjustment problem from the former Soviet Union to the more open system today. I think, for the moment, you could say just that, maybe adding that such programmes have always faced implementation difficulties, and, again, just leave it there. What I'm trying to do is get to a point where mentions of such topic are added, to avoid criticism of non-completeness, without trying to put a slant on them - and I can fully understand national pride is involved. But we're trying to write a complete and balanced article; things should go in, but there does not have to be grand essays on who's right, wrong, or to blaim for the current situation. If necessary, they can be reexamined later. Tell me what you think. And also, introductions; I'm a Kiwi with a master's degree just starting for a PhD, and live in Wellington. You're a law student, you say, in Chelyabinsk, did I have it right? Anyway, best wishes for the holidays, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello - not to interfere, but upon looking at the FAC and the current article, the most pressing problem is the size. I'm having difficulty loading this page and I have DSL! Also, as per the issues on the FAC, I think it is necessary and well beyond the debate that the size of the history section needs to be slashed dramatically. Buckshot06 and K a r n a are giving good advice, but I am going to go out on the limb and cut down the History section to summarize, leaving the specifics to the main articles on those subjects.  Shiva eVolved  14:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have worked to slash the size, so far by 9kb. Please do not take offense for the removal of some material without due consultation, but unless the article changes, it will never attain FA status. We need to be flexible and make those improvements.  Shiva eVolved  19:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Miyokan, thanks for your message. I would just end up repeating myself if I said what I thought to your last message, and I don't want to have an argument just because we disagree. I'd just want to say that I do not think another FAC attempt will be accepted if these issues are not mentioned at all, because they are some of the major issues that have put the Russian Federation in the news in the last few years. Kind regards and happy holidays, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your willingness to discuss some of these issues. I would make two points about your Khol ~ ~ ~ insert (sorry, don't remember how to exactly spell his name, apologies). Most importantly, I believe the way you portrayed this would be violently disagreed with by many who might read this article. The way it was seen in the West was he was squashed by the Kremlin on trumped-up charges - further, a view held by many (I mean, I believe it, based on reading things by the Economist etc, and I think that many others would, esp in USA etc) is that these kind of charges are made very selectively against major figures who do not do what the Kremlin wants them to do. Diversion, sorry, trumped up charges because he would not allow his oil & gas operations to be directed/merged by the Kremlin as it wished. Second point would be that looking at that last sentance of the paragraph, I'd want individual cites for both the Russian public acceptance and the Westerners who weren't deterred. I know BP is still willing to go ahead in Sakhalin, but what about others? But that's just my view. I'd suggest you ask ShivaEvolution for a review as well. Finally, another point that you might trip up on is the NTV/TV6 story and the whole question of the restriction of TV viewpoints more and more toward pro-govt only; if you mentioned that, with mentions of both sides of the story ..maybe 'Russian believe X Y Z and Westerners believe this A B C' I for one would be much happier to vote it for FAC the next time round. Remember this is all just my opinion, and you'd be wise to bring in another couple of editors' views, because I do not follow anything but the Russian military closely. Best regards again, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was meaning mostly during the 1990s. Tell you what, I'll look up the old Conflict Studies Research Centre reports that quote Russian sources - those guys can read Russian - and fix it, with a reference to a specific year. How about that? Far more important, what do you wish to do about oligarchs, Gazprom 'gas diplomacy,' NTV and subsequently TV6, etc? ShivaEvolution, I'm sure, and myself certainly will be willing to help, but it's really you that's leading this particular mini-project. Best regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Miyokan, of course, you're right. That matches with my vague memories of the event. I would advise you adapt your talk text to me and insert it into the article - it would give a much more rounded, balanced, version of the event. I will double-check what you've been writing about the status of Russian democracy in the article and get back to you, because what you're confirming is that Russia is effectively a dictatorship - and that is important. That's why I am also making noises about NTV and TV6 etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking now at the article, I would argue 'Government and Politics' needs some sort of mention of this - it's rather skimmed over there very lightly. Would you mind if I constructed a couple of tightly focused sentances stating the arguments one way and the other, and put them in? I believe it would improve the balance of the article a lot. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This kind of text: 'In Russia it's just not possible to become and especially to remain a billionaire without strong connections to the very top in the Kremlin. Yeltsin relied on the oligarchs to help him narrowly win the 1996 presidential election (the oligarchs controlled all the media and donated to Yeltsin's party). In return, they were granted various privileges (such as not having to pay taxes).' Now I realise, re-reading it this morning, that this does not actual say that Russia is a dictatorship, but it gives half the background. But you're aware of the way that the Kremlin runs the country. It's not surprising that Russians welcome a authoritarian type of government - they've had nothing else, Tsars, communists, and then a first experience of 'democracy' that was very offputting for many amid shock therapy etc. Why not describe the situation as it actually is - a continuation of Russia's historic traditions, with good reason for that continuation - which has not much to do with democracy as it is understood here or in the UK. Why retain the most diplomatic words of that European commissioner, which is not descriptive, but face-saving? There are good legitimate reasons why Russia isn't democratic; why try to paper them over with the fact that elections are actually held? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 'President Putin soon made it clear that there was no question of that with him in charge.' Or of any other man who might wish to challenge his power - the new 'vertical of power' wasn't it? A very strong president, rearranging the governors' appointment process, for example, in order to gain greater power, using all the resources of the security services, etc, tax cases against those who might trouble him, state media control to influence elections, beating down peaceful street protests with OMON - in NZ we would call than authoritarianism. I think most politically interested people in NZ would argue that elections alone - especially if they have large number of irregularities, take a look at the OSCE reports - do not make a democracy. That's my opinion anyway. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi man. We are arguing over definitions of democracy. Good debate to have. My overall point is that unless you reflect some of these kind of widely held viewpoints in the article - and you can balance them with your strongly held views - I do not personally believe the article will be given FAC status. As just recently happened in Venezuela also, it is not seen as good by many Western governments when a very strong government shuts down the only independent TV station reporting views that contradict that government's preferred news and opinions. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My frank criticism I've observed your edits, Miyokan, and I feel that you are obsessing over unencyclopedic issues such as the "definition of democracy" as Buckshot06 points out. I criticize such an edit in particular. I believe this is completely unnecessary - this is like a statement from Russia's Foreign Ministry declaring its policy. This is an encyclopedia, so simply state the facts and keep opinions/clarifications/explanations out, for the most part; don't worry about what people may/may not think, and don't "predict" how the Russian government will choose to respond to an issue. Such edits are now un-doing the job of reducing the article size from 112kb to 96kb, (now it is 101kb). You have to admit that the prior version was not up to standards, but re-insertion of such material will only keep the status quo in another form. It is my opinion that the focus must be on rewriting the article with simple but clear prose, which will leave out the elaborate explanations and arguments regarding Russia's form of democracy, its stated future behavior with foreign affairs, its change in military recruiting, how "disastrous" was Napoleon's defeat, what kind of rulers the Khazars were... etc. Regards,  Shiva eVolved  23:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Shiva, with regards to this edit, it is what the BBC wrote . Although I have no problem removing it. Do not worry so much about the size. Belgium, a featured article, is 120kb. I have finished adding all the information that I think should be added (challenges facing the economy, the HIV/AIDS problem, tuburculosis resurgence, and I was asked by Buckshot/Karna to insert information about the arrest of Khodorkovsky, raising the price of gas to ex-Soviet countries).--Miyokan (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I was terse in my prior comment - I just wanted to drive home the point that the article needs a different approach. Actually, the link establishes that it is pretty much BBC's own analysis, point-of-view. Also, Belgium I think is a poor example (an old FAC I believe, way back in '04), especially as the main objections on the Russia FAC will not have been addressed. The trouble is that even with superior connection, I am having difficulty in loading that page - a vast majority of others will probably have more serious complaints.  Shiva eVolved  01:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Russians page being constantly vandalized
Please read this and take part in the argument. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WW2 template
"Hello, I have noticed that you have replaced the montage with the static map of the WW2 combatants. I have reverted your edits because: We already have a map of greater value right under it, The information presented in your map is ambiguous (not necessary because we have a List of Allied powers and axis powers right under it, the same information presented in a map is not necessary), and sure, there are some heated debates over which images to use, but a consensus must be drawn no matter how difficult it is to represent the war in a few images (we can't just say 'It's too hard to decide...Hey! let just use a map!' If you don't believe me, you can view American Civil War, World War I, American Revolutionary War, Napoleonic Wars, Korean War, or any other war article (1,2,3, and see that all these have montages because montages most represent a war. Thanks, hope this helps -- Penubag 09:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)"

your continued revert
Um, in case you haven't read the above, I suggest you do. This is purely common sense, an infobox image's purpose is to sum up an article, not to present facts, especially a map as controversial and insignificance as that one. The reason for its unimportance is because the combatant info is just right under the map. No need for double information. As responce to your concern, I will restart the discussion over the images. Thanks. -- penubag  05:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me
Thank you!--Miyokan (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I havet to sorta chime in about this. Eventhough I commented the FAC of Russia somewhat critically (and I still believe it should be trimmed), dedicated work on such a high-profile, controversial article should be commended. It can't be easy handling on one's nerves to handle all the huffing and puffing that has been going on over at Featured article candidates/Russia. Hope you can handle the pressure.
 * Peter Isotalo 14:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Kremlin Senate.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kremlin Senate.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) 17:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Russia Infobox
Template:Russia Infobox 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. Richard Ω6  12  15:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out to me! The USA one has been added to the nomination for exactly the same reason. >< Richard  Ω6  12  16:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

United States length
If you're honestly concerned about this issue, please start a relevant thread on the Talk page with your constructive suggestions, rather than edit-warring to maintain a tag that is unhelpful and distracting to the vast majority of our readership. It is pointless to demand "dramatic reduction" while remaining entirely silent on where such drama...excuse, me...reduction might take place.

By the way, you have made another false claim when say there is no recent evidence that editors are informed. If you actually cared about the article and followed the work on it, you would know there have been several reverts in the past few weeks made on the primary and express basis of restricting further growth of the article. Are you honestly concerned with this issue?

Oh, and three reverts in the span of just 45 minutes means you clearly need this:

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.

Instead of tagging an article that is evidently well-maintained, in the future, just do the right thing and raise your concerns on the Talk page. It's a much more productive approach.—DCGeist (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break Geist, if I had reverted your reversion soon after rather than several hours later, you would have no doubt used your 3 reverts instantly as your record of unrelentless reverting on said article attests:

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.

Random edits aimed at "restricting further growth of the article" does nothing to address the problem of the article's current excessive length. The problem is with the current size of the article, not about restricting further growth. When there is no discussion about the length problem since December 18, it is clear indication that users are not "well informed". Certainly, "well informed" would imply that there is some kind of lengthy and vibrant discussion going on at the moment about how to reduce the article, not some half page discussion from almost a month ago where half of the users said that this article has no choice but to be this length. There is no mention on talk about some kind of 'template reduction' being in progress, which I doubt will significantly reduce the article, - but editors are still "well informed", right? (also, rather than content summarization and reduction, editors have attempted to cheat the size by replacing the Infobox with a template. It is currently up for deletion and the text of it will be reinserted, adding further size to this already bloated article). Furthermore, there has been problems with this article's size for an amazing amount of time, with no progress resulting despite repeated calls for it in the past. Having the template pasted on the article might perhaps encourage editors who have been unable or unwilling to reduce this article's size.--Miyokan (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's revealing that you have the mental energy to project what I "no doubt" would have done under a hypothetical scenario in which you misbehave differently, and yet you have still not been able to motivate yourself to offer a single concrete suggestion for reducing the size of the article. Why should anyone believe you are proceeding in good faith here?—DCGeist (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you have reverted back the template again just after you crossed the 24 hour mark for the 3RR. Doesn't it tell you something when nobody but yourself has reverted me? No other editors have removed the tag, even when it was there for all that time when you could not revert it yet again. You keep saying that I should offer ways to reduce the article if I insert the template - I am not obliged to do this and I will leave that to the editors who have more expertise on this topic. P.S. Do you have any suggestions about how to push Russia through FAC?--Miyokan (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Miyokan, you might have gained some allies if you'd approached the editors of United States in a different manner. I, for one, would have been happy to lend you some help getting Russia through FAC—it's a strong article and, with a good push, should be able to get over the line. As it is, you've only isolated yourself further while achieving nothing productive.—DCGeist (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Macau FAC
Hi Miyokan, I've made some edits trying to address your concerns raised regarding the FAC Macau. I hope you'll reconsider your objection. Thank you for your time. Josuechan (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Josuechan, just ignore his comment. And please vote "Oppose" to make sure his article Russia fail and leave the page of FAC immediately.  His poor article is almost failed, just give him last bullet.  I will come back and check it tomorrow!!   Coloane (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's true! whenever you nominate Russia or Russian related articles, I will surely vote OPPOSE or take them to FAR.  This is the heavy price you have to pay. Coloane (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mikoyan. It frightens me to see the above messages concerning Russia. I believe this is bigger than 3RR. Perhaps you would consider moving your comment there to something more serious, like the Administrators' noticeboard, or to the Conflict of interest Noticeboard. Surely, such actions deserve more than a mere 24 hours ban. Best regards, Bogdan що? 03:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reagan edits
Aspiring is not the same thing as approving. Your edit summary: "See the Republican presidential debates, all of the candidates said that they aspire to be like Reagan)" implies that your thinking for your edit was synthesis. Indeed if republicans are all aspiring to be reagan, the democrats will have an easier time of it, since none of the Republicans will be acting like themselves. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion
May I politely suggest that you stop following my edits through a number of articles, as well as asking others to join you ? I do not think we need any escalation here. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue there seemed clear cut, I went to the administrator rather than engage in an edit war as you have a history of unsubstantiated, unrelentless reverting.--Miyokan (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes or no, please. Are you going to stop following my edits?Biophys (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not following your edits. Are you going to stop deleting sourced and pertinent information? You have already been caught misrepresenting sources --Miyokan (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I mean that you started editing articles Patriarch Alexius II (a revert of my edit) and Alexander Litvinenko right after me, perhaps because we had a disagreement in article Vladimir Putin. But since you are telling that you are not following my edits and not asking others to join you, I gladly accept your good faith and hope that we do not have any problems. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But if you are not trying to "mobilize" others, such tricks   are hardly appropriate. Cheers, Biophys (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer
You are of course free to consider my edits disruptive and to comment on it. While I've made very few changes to the page, you're involved in an ongoing edit war in which I consider your edit warring highly disruptive. Speaking about administrators, may I remind you that only yesterday you received a strong warning from an administrator over your behaviour here on your talkpage. You removed it, sure, but that doesn't make it any less of a warning. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to certify this notice, please do so
This board requires two users certify the complaint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muscovite99#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute

If you would be interested in doing so, please go to that section, and sign it with the requisite four ~. Thanks. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Patriarch Alexius II
I have made a suggestion at Patriarch Alexius II that I think is workable. It changes the rules a little and should significantly reduce conflict. I would like to invite you to review the proposal and participate in the creation of a great article. It will stop edit warring by restricting work to the talk page in part because reverting another editors comments on the talk page is counter to WP:TALK. Jeepday (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Russia map
The question I've been trying to figure out is the scope. With the other maps, I've started at a certain point in the formation of the country - the 1792 constitution for the USA, the act of dominion for Canada, the formation of the Mexican republic, etc. So, by that logic, my map of Russia would start on December 12, 1991. Sure, Russia is the successor state to the Soviet Union, but I really think the two are better served by different articles. (plus one for any changes within the Russian SFSR) So, I'll make maps of the evolution of Russia going as far back as I can, but I can't promise they'll be in the same image/article. :)

As for when, eh, I've been idle on these for some time, having become frustrated with finding English sources on Indonesia and Brazil, so I suppose I'll move to Russia/USSR/pre-union RSFSR/Russian Empire next. I'll start by making a list of the changes, perhaps you can fill in any gaps you see missing. Like the others, my initial list will come from statoids.com (this link in specific), which goes back to 1905, which leaves another 184 years of the Russian Empire to find out. --Golbez (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I was just speaking of my general plans, hadn't noticed you wanted it to go all the way back, pre-Empire. Hm. This'll be fun. Between the copyvio'd map, the Britannica map, and the German map, I'll be squinting for weeks. ;) If you know of any other good sources for the changes/expansion of Russia pre-20th century, please let me know, anything will help. --Golbez (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on February 4 2008 to Russian apartment bombings
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=170709706