Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board/Archive06

Nikolay Troubetzkoy

 * This article is needed some attention after edits of anonimus. - Vald 10:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look Horvat Den 16:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought, its really just not that notable. Should be nominated maybe. Horvat Den 05:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy 2007!
Happy New Year to all! - Introvert  •  ~  23:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

iy-mover
Who was it who liked these kinds of moves? `'mikkanarxi 10:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are the author of this stub, so it is ultimately up to you whether you like -y or -iy better in this case, because both are otherwise acceptable.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Премия Рунета
Recently, I noticed that the Russian Wikipedia has been awarded the Премия Рунета for the development of the Russian language on the Internet. I don't know how significant the award is, but the Russian Wikipedia was proud enough to have the the Runeta statuette included in´its Wiki-Ru logo for some time. See also the Press Release: [Ru: Википедия:Пресс-релиз/О вручении «Премии Рунета»]. Well, well... I added a notice on Wikipedia /awards. Best regards, Odengatan 12:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The award was mentioned in the Wikipedia Signpost and I created a stub article for the Runet Prize. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Tunguska
Am I correct in believing that there is no such a "region in Siberia" called Tunguska? If I am right, I'd like to delete it and move Tunguska (disambiguation) in its place. `'mikkanarxi 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. Tunguska is the name of several rivers, not a "region".  The event was called after this one.  One might call the area around this river "Tunguska region", but that would only be acceptable for convenience sake, not in an encyclopedia.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Притунгусье"? Max S em 07:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never heard this term and could not find any confirmation that it is a valid name of a defined geographic location. Where did you hear it?&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add a smiley:) Max S em 07:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved. A related question: See Podkamennaya Tunguska. Does it make sense to unify the river name as well? `'mikkanarxi 20:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

One more related question. Sinve my childhood I was puzzled with the place "Faktoriya Vanovara". Does anyone have any idea about the name? My reasonable guess is that it was "Vannevar's Factory". I see nothing unusual that there was a trading outpost of an American in Siberia. `'mikkanarxi 20:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mayakovskoye-Nemmersdorf and Red Army atrocities
Could someone please put these two on their watch list? By the way, that De Zayas book that someone wants to use for the Mayakovskoye article IS given as a reference under Red Army atrocities. Is this the sort of comment that you expect in a reference section: "Description of the atrocities of the Red Army in East Prussia, quotations from the rape-inciting works of Ilya Ehrenburg, poems by anti-cruelty Red Army officers and details of suicides and rapings of German women and children in East Prussia."

By the way, as I say on the talk page of Mayakovskoye, this Alfred-Maurice de Zayas (yes, we have an article on him) is obviously an "activist". He took part in a rally of irredentist Silezians in 2005 (and no, those guys are not the Steinbach bunch!), is still mentioning 2 million vertriebung dead in his recent works, and calls the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir a war crime comparable to Lidice, Oradour, Babi Yar, Dresden and, surprise, Nemmersdorf. The only link I see between Mers-el-kKebir and Nemmersdorf is the fact that it was Goebbels propaganda that turned both into a war crime. --Pan Gerwazy 13:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pomors
This also happened at Nemmersdorf-Mayakovskoye. Johannes Rohr moved the article on Pomor to Pomors. Could it be that this was done by cut and paste? There is no history there. I do not think he wrote all that on his own. --Pan Gerwazy 14:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Vityaz na rasputye
Russian help needed in the Fork in the road (metaphor) `'mikkanarxi 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reward_board#Any_topic_related_to_Belarus.2C_Russia_or_Ukraine

 * Any topic related to Belarus, Russia or Ukraine
 * Offeror: wants to be anonymous
 * Date offered: 06:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Request: create from scratch or raise from pity shape any article related the history, politics, economy, anything of any of these three countries to WP:Featured status.
 * Additional requirement: the editor has to live in any of these three or other former-USSR countries (Baltic States are also eligible).
 * Reward: Reimbursement of three months worth of the costs of your Internet service provider (DSL or other high speed services are also eligible within reason)
 * Notes: please contact the awarding party by email here if you have any questions, to claim an award or if you are interested in cosponsoring. The donor is an established editor (maybe a group of editors) willing to make this offer anonymously. The moneys will be paid in cash in your local currency in an informal manner. If several editors co-edited the article together, the reward will not be divided. Rather all main contributors will receive a full award.
 * Limitations: None. The offer may be terminated at any time while there are no specific plans to do so.


 * Please see Reward_board
 * Sounds very vague and scammy. --Ineffable3000 03:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the easiest way to check is to advance an article into the FA status and see if they keep the promise Alex Bakharev 05:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If the stranger(s) does not follow on his/her/their promises after all conditions are met, I agree to personally serve as a backup, although I limit this only to articles related to Russia, only to one contributor's three months ISP expenses (selected by the group of involved contributors), and will make the payment only via Western Union in US dollars. Other conditions remain the same.  If you don't need this money, I'll make a contribution in the amount of your reward to the Wikimedia Foundation.  How's this for motivation?&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

From the originator(s) of this offer: the only intent of the award is to remove one obstacle, possibly faced by some editors, to do the quality work. It surely means well and is made with sincerity. Please feel free to email with any questions. No big deal
 * Too bad I live in the States, but I am still proud on the BY, RU and UA articles I got to featured status. I hope this works out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Anton Chekhov
I've been working on the Anton Chekhov article and have posted a question about him at Talk:List of Ukrainians I'd appreciate informed comments there (even impatient ones), as I wish to be accurate, and the sources tease me on this matter. Many thanks. qp10qp 18:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have now had a couple of replies and can tick this off my list of things to look into. Cheers. qp10qp 22:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Olga Krasilnikov
Pardon my ignorance, but has she ever existed? Never heard of her, so I decided to check it out. KNewman 20:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Never heard myself as well. Googlebook finds her in the book Women Warriors. So she should not be a hoax Alex Bakharev 22:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should nominate it for deletion. Is every woman warrior notable? Horvat Den 04:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Empress Consorts of Russia
Do not wonder at such edits. The page was unilaterally moved to Royal Consorts of Russia. -- Ghirla -трёп-  10:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Muscovy
Please voice your opinion in talk:Muscovy (disambiguation). 17:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Continuation War
The article is subject to incessant revert-warring and has an offensive image in the lead. -- Ghirla -трёп-  11:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Russian Foreign Ministers
Without bothering to consult anyone, John Kenney added succession boxes to all articles about Russian foreign ministers. I think that succession may be traced from Template:Foreign ministers of Russia and the Soviet Union transcluded on each page and I consider additional clutter redundant. What do you think? -- Ghirla -трёп-  12:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Neva
User:Drieakko set out to "disprove" the historicity of the Battle of the Neva by replacing the text of the article with lengthy quotations from ill-translated primary sources. Comments are appreciated. -- Ghirla -трёп-  19:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Kuaukutsu
If you type an English text while accedentally switching to Cyrillic, you will see something strange. E.g., typing "Mikkalai" you will see "ьшллфдфш", mostly something whic is impossible to utter. But sometimes you will see some funny, but quite caliphonic words. Today, when typing a section title "Reference", I suddenly saw "Куаукутсу" on the screen. I bet half of Russians (or even more) know the word "еру" (as in "ЕРУНДА", not as in "epyllion", which is EPYHDA anyway, but this is a different story. Who doesn't know, please put your name here.).

So I suggest a competition or game or something else useless: to list such pronounceable words in Portal:Russia/Kuaukutsu, and see what comes from this.

NOTE: I hope you will not confuse this with volapuk or Faux Cyrillic. `'mikkanarxi 03:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I use Dvorak layout, so I could probably come up with tons of these. But that would probably be against the rules of this game, wouldn't it?&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Бовщв ры еыа гвл еыащ првфжц ЬпммфХ (В.опмп)

Hehe. I am not the first one! See ru:Лытдыбр, ru:Акшутвы. `'mikka 03:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for Russian settlements
I thought it is about time to finally document existing naming conventions for Russian settlements, so I took liberty to submit a proposal to add them to Naming conventions (settlements). The proposed section on the policy page redirects all wishing to comment here.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is "Republic of" really necessary, or is Oktyabrsky, Bashkortostan sufficient? The proposal appears to document the current practice, so shortening it would be a change. --Scott Davis Talk 06:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Republic of" is added for consistency. We do not shorten the names of other types of federal subjects (i.e., we use "City X, Vologda Oblast", not "City X, Vologda"), so why should the republics be different?  Even putting the inconsistency concerns aside, such a change would require combing through literally hundreds of disambiguation pages and their backlinks, all with very minimal (if any) potential gain.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I could ask the same question about "Oblast", but as I don't generally edit any articles affected by the convention, I don't really feel I should argue either way, as long as it has been considered. Thankyou. --Scott Davis Talk 00:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. To address your concern (for others reading this thread), "oblast" and "krai" are not omitted because doing so would often create ambiguity.  There very well may occur a situation when one entity called "X" could be one under jurisdiction of the oblast ("X, Vologda Oblast") and another entity, also called "X", could be under jurisdiction of the administrative center that gave name to that oblast ("X, Vologda").&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference because Vologda refers to the city, and Bashkortostan refers to the republic. Conscious 16:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you say off the top of your head what "Primorsky" would refer to then? Or "Altai"?  Using abbreviated disambiguators creates more trouble than benefits.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You probably misunderstood me. I would definitely support full names for all oblasts (including autonomous) and krais, and short names for republics (except Altai and possibly Karelia, because they're ambiguous). I'm not so sure about the autonomous okrugs. In fact, my opinion seems to boil down to use the name of the correspoding Wikipedia article. Conscious 17:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I understood you quite well. The reason why I prefer to use full names of the republics instead of the shorter ones (which are the titles of the articles) is because switching to shorter titles would require too much monotonous work (one would have to hunt down all occurences of the full names&mdash;not an easy task!&mdash;and fix them, which in practice would require editing hundreds of disambiguation pages and fixing their backlinks; and this task also can't really be easily automated).  I just don't see the benefits, not to mention the volunteers :)  As a matter of fact, I think it would be so much easier and less confusing to just move the republics to their full names, just as it is the case with the autonomous okrugs.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also like to propose some kind of primary topic disambiguation. I can't think of a good example, but if there were a small village somewhere called, say, Vologda, this would not mean that the city article should be renamed Vologda, Vologda Oblast. Conscious 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to worry&mdash;that's exactly how it is already done at present (although I neglected to mention it with the policy proposal). A large city such as Vologda would always be located at Vologda (with  put across the top), while smaller entities would be disambiguated via Vologda (disambiguation) page.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that the effort of changing should not be considered as part of deciding what is the "right way" to name articles. Tools like WP:AWB and WP:POPUPS can be used to fix large numbers of links relatively painlessly. In fact, if an article is moved to a new name but the old name is staying as a redirect, then the only links that must be changed immediately are the double redirects. A disambiguation page should also be fixed quickly, but the other links do not need to be changed immediately, but just over time as people are editing the articles anyway. --Scott Davis Talk 21:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Automated tools such as AWB and popups is precisely what I want to avoid, at least at this point of time. If you take a look at the administrative structure of Russia, from top to bottom, at the sheer number of entities involved, and at the complex relations between them, you'd see that automated change on a large scale is very undesirable because it'll literally wreak havoc.  Leaving redirects here and there after moves are performed will render my job virtually impossible to do, and, like I said, I just don't see any volunteers who'd be willing to devote time to help with manual structuring.  Finally, I am not sure what "right way" you speak of.  The convention I documented and proposed is hardly so uncompliant with common practices that it needs immediate fixing, yet it does ensure consistent, logical, and acceptable naming scheme within Russia; precisely as WP:PLACES recommends.  Do you see any serious problems with the proposal which could not wait until the structure of administrative divisions of Russia is straightened up to the point where automatic tools become useful?  If not, then I'd rather spend my time continuing to work on administrative divisions instead of tweaking what's already done every time policies and guidelines change slightly.  If yes, I'll, of course, will have to fix it before I proceed further (I've done it before, so no worries there).&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds quite fine to me as you propose it, Ezhiki. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are no further concerns, I'll mark the proposal as active guideline later this week.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, the proposal is now an active guideline. Thank you everyone for your comments.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Category move
There was yet another brainless category move from Category:Russian people of religion to Category:Russian religious leaders. Obviously, these guys do not understand the meaning of the word "leader". For example, "strigolniki" turned out to be religious leaders. Having no desire to argue with ardent "movers and shakers" who have no clue in areas they move and shake, I created the Category:Russian religious figures. Please help to re-populate/clean up. `'mikka 04:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

List of nicknames of European Royalty and Nobility
List of nicknames of European Royalty and Nobility - a huge, mostly one-person project. Any volunteers to update/verify Russian monarchs? `'mikka 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

100,000,000 edits
See here. `'mikka 00:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * pouring :) - Introvert  •  ~  00:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Kremlin.ru
I've discovered for myself the website of the President of Russia http://kremlin.ru, which is a good source of free images (see kremlin.ru). I was able to find there photos of some famous people (like Viktor Chernomyrdin or Anastasia Myskina). Unfortunately, the copyright statement of the site says nothing about modification of the images, and this may be a way to trouble... But for now I'd say it's a very useful resource. Conscious 16:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Mitki"?
Can someone who knows anything about the subject clean up the Mitki page, please? The article, as it stands now, is a complete, utter, rambling mess. Such a mess that I can't even separate what should be kept from what should be deleted. Esn 02:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Father of the Nation
Hello. I saw this article which lists various persons considered "Father" in many countries and I am musing if Vladimir I. Lenin is considered among people in Russia a Father of the Nation. Is he? Thanks in advance. - Darwinek 19:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, I am not surpised that didn't last long, once spotted. It could be worse, though, some well-meaning soul could have went with Stalin, you know :) Seriously, as more then one entry is permitted, wouldn't addition of Peter the Great be in order?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Stalin called himself "father of the nation", among other things...  Grue   18:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Nina Petrovna Valetova
This article (about a painter) is currently on VfD. Could someone take a look? TIA Pavel Vozenilek 11:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Russians victims of the Paneriai massacre
I recently expanded and referenced the article. Info on Russian victims, which appear to be the third largest group of victims there, appear to be scarce. Only one source mentions a number - 7500 Soviet POWs, another mentions just 7500 POWs without stating their nationality and in the paragraph describing Polish victims (I changed the article to note that the 7500 POWs were Soviet, not Polish, but I'd prefer a better ref for that), several soruces mentions Russian victims in general (civilians, partisans - so the number should be higher then 7500, I gave the 8000 number but it is just my estimate of POWs + a guess). There is also an issue of Soviet government apparently denying that Poles (and Jews?) were killed there (not sure when the official line was changed, and why exactly is not clear, as this was obviously a German organized massacre...?). Some Russian sources on those issues would be appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To build up on the question above, recently the Ponary massacre article has become target of people claiming that the massacre was carried by Poles and Russians. Please comment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Polonization
At Talk:Polonization, one of the issues discussed is whether the article should or shouldn't discuss countertrends (like Russification) in any detail. There is also a debate about reliability of ~100 years old Russian resarch as references. Comments would be appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

big 1848 project
Здравствуйте! I just wanted to let you know that I have proposed a WikiProject on the Revolutions of 1848 here. Come join us if you're interested! K. Lásztocska 14:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Need help with proposal for categorization of Russian/Soviet films
The system for categorizing Soviet/Russian films has been a bit of mess for some time now, so I thought if we could try and fix it. Please read my proposal over here and add your comments. Esn 23:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Translit
Something has to be done with Translit, Russian Chat Alphabet, Volapuk encoding, to conform Attribution. In view of "Romanization of Russian" article, I suggest to replace them with a single article about Electronic romanizations of Russian, or Informal romanizations of Russian (or better title?), with "Volapuk" going into its "history" section. `'mikka 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We can, of course, do that, but from what I see the result still wouldn't meet the attribution requirements. Are there any good sources on the subject at all?&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If I knew "adresa i yavki" I wouldn't ask fellow wikipedians for "taktiko-tekhnicheskie dannye sovetskih minomyotov". My whole point is to start the article from scratch, proceeding strictly within WP:ATTR. I did find something reliable for Volapuk encoding after some tedious googling. `'mikka 02:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama, and why it matters
This note may be of some importance to anyone who happens to have illustrated a Wikipeadia article with a photo of a modern (as in, post 1950 or so) building, sculpture, or other structure in Russia, or certain other countries. It also matters to you if you feel it is important for wikipedia's accessible and categorizable image archives to contain images of public structures, even if not all images are immediately used in articles.

Besides Russia, the countries affected include, at least, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Uzbekistan, Romania, Belgium, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Images from some other countrie (e.g. Japan and Norway) may also be affected to some extent.

What is the matter? According to the Freedom of panorama article, laws of Russia, as well as some other countries, allows one to store or use images of buildings, sculptures, and such, but not to use them commercially. Now, uploading an image to en.wikipedia.org, ru.wikipedia.org, or Wiki Commons does not involve commercial use. However, Wiki Commons does not allow "noncommercial-use-only" licenses; therefore, it can be reasoned that no image of this kind can be uploaded to the Commons. (And it appears that some sufficiently vigilant community members are starting to reason this way!)

One can salvage some of such images but moving to them to en.wikipedia.org - but under what license? Wikipedia does not allow images under "non-free" license either. There is also the exceptional category of fair use, but it is very restrictive: to post a "fair use" image, not only there must be no free alternative available (well, I guess it is the case for the buildings etc. images in countrees with "non-commercial-only" Freedom of Panorma), but the image must be also in use, right now, in some particular article. Creating such as immediate "fair use rationale" for each of the many thousands of photos of Russian cities in Wiki Commons on individual wikipedias may not be feasible; having to do will result in the loss of many images that are currently not used in any article, but could likely be used in the future.

A realistic approach would be, in my view, to recognize that due to the existing laws, there is a huge amount of subject matter for which, at this time, only a "noncommercial-only" license is possible, and to find a way to accommodate it legally, if not on Wiki Commons than in English Wikipedia. A special license could be created, e.g. noncommercial-FOP, with the guidelines that it may only be used for images of buildings, sculptures, structures, etc. where such a restriction is required by the restrictive "freedom of panorama" laws. This will allow creation of a sort of "Limbo" between the Paradise of free images and the Purgatory of the "fair use".

The above, unfortunately, may be politically unacceptable.

Can anyone with legal / Wiki administrative background comment on the situation, and consider what we can do to maintain freedom to store useful (and, per se, perfectly legal) images and to keep using them in the non-for-profit Wikipedia? Vmenkov 03:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * !@#$%^&*! Another PD-Soviet debacle. Is it already under discussions or it is a theoretical concept now? (The commons link does not appear to work). I believe there is a special fair use Statue that does not require Fair Use rationale, we could probably make another one for the buildings, but all unused images would be lost. Lets battle Alex Bakharev 04:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have fixed the broken links, which are quite real. (Except of course for "noncommercial-FOP", which is just a suggestion). Vmenkov 16:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Pokrovsk
Could someone double-check when Engels, Russia was renamed from Pokrovsk? The English article says 1931, while the German article says 1924. Olessi 23:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Official website of Saratov Oblast gives the date of 1931, and so does the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and a variety of other sources I consulted. The 1924 date refers to when it became the capital of the Volga German Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.  I'll amend the article; thanks for helping catch the error!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya uzhe sdelal. The German article also claimed it was the second biggest town in the oblast, forgetting Balakovo. --Pan Gerwazy 10:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Territorial changes of Poland
Says nothing about Polish-Soviet War and Tesin. Unfortunately I am not an expert, so just bringing to your attention. Mukadderat 19:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll put it on my project list. Horvat Den 05:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Internet brigades
Some urgent help is needed in making a potential article over here - about the alleged flooding of the internet with information by secret police used by a few governments (currently the Russians and the Chinese have been alleged of doing this). Some notable sources are available in the references section.

The original article (which was very problematic and was deleted) was purely based on the FSB allegations, and an attempt is being made to make the future potential article more international. It is currently up for deletion review over here, where there is a tie of votes (9 to 9) between those who endorse its deletion and those who want it overturned and relisted.

This is a very controversial topic, but in my view there seem to be enough notable sources to make a decent article out of it, so I hope that someone here may be able to help. Please note that something does not have to be true in order to have a wikipedia article; see 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I'm posting this message on several different wikiprojects and other places, in the hope that enough people look at the article that it undergoes the thorough review which it needs. Esn 01:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First, Biophys has been creating articles by the dozen which are all basically about the same thing, use the same sources, and are POV both in subtle and non-subtle ways. We are not talking about one single article.


 * Two, have a good look at one of these articles (Yevgenia Albats), where we find the following pearl: "She estimated that the number of Chekists in Russia in 1992 was approximately 500,000. It means that "Russia has one FSB-ist for every 297 citizens", whereas "the Soviet Union had one KGB officer for every 428 citizens." Of course, our own article about the Cheka claims that it was abolished long ago. But look how Biophys covered his tracks: he has Albats "estimating" it! As for the numbers quoted, the comparison is plain silly because 1992 was one year after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and one may reasonably expect Russia to have taken over the bulk of those agents. But any attempt to correct that would of course be called OR. Oh, and in the same article, Biophys keeps on putting back an accusation against Edward Kennedy that was removed per RFC on the Edward Kennedy article. Paradoxically, it seems that the same sources which are deemed not trustworthy enough when you look at the story from the American angle, become trustworthy when viewed from the Russian side of events.
 * I am sorry, but I have stopped getting angry at people who think it must be reputable, because it appeared in a newpaper, ignoring that anything anti-Russian, anti-Polish or anti-German will have a newspaper article to back it up - or even a book sometimes!(thinking now of Ataturk as a homosexual - try to put that into a Wikipedia article) It only leads to a wry smile, these days.--Pan Gerwazy 18:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What a biased comment! First, it was not "Russian" versus "US" difference about Edward Kennedy. It was difference of Kennedy BLP article (WP:BLP rules are special!) versus not his BLP article, as I explained in talk page. Second, let's cite completely what I have written: "Albats described some of her findings in the book The State Within a State: The KGB and Its Hold on Russia - Past, Present, and Future, which was published in 1994. She estimated that the number of Chekists in Russia in 1992 was approximately 500,000. It means that "Russia has one FSB-ist for every 297 citizens", whereas "the Soviet Union had one KGB officer for every 428 citizens." "


 * I rest my case. Biophys does not even start to try to get my argument: that the statistic is unusable because 1992 is just one year after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and most of these people may just have happened to be Russian or live in Russia. As for Edward Kennedy, the arguments used in his article are of course also valid elsewhere. Unless you think someone will not sue because the article about him/her is "clean". "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page."

Everything is supported by references. I even did not divide any numbers. If you have any other good sources that provide different numbers, you are welcome to cite them also. As about Chekists, I used this words (instead of "KGB members") because Albats used it in her book. Everyone understands what we are talking about.Biophys 20:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * FSB of course, not KGB. Typical: one of the subtle ways in which Biophys pushes his POV is using the present perfect in sentences containing the word "KGB". Present perfect: a tense indicating an action started in the past and still continuing. We even need to have a good look at the grammar of all this... --Pan Gerwazy 23:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See book by Albats (page 23). She said 500,000 "Chekists" in Russia (not Soviet Union!). I cited exatly as in the source. I could not find any numbers later than 1992 (the number of FSB personnel is state secret); this is not necessary since the text was about the book by Albats. It was Pacepa who said "FSB-ist", and I cited as in this second source. Biophys 03:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm dissappointed that not a single reply so far has been about the actual article in question (state-sponsored online information warfare). It seems to me that the topic satisfies the general notability criterion. Wikipedia has articles on both UFOs and vanished civilizations because they have been written about by notable people, so it shouldn't be a consideration whether the allegations are true or not. This seems to be the case here - even if the allegations are false, they seem to have appeared in notable publications. What is real here is not necessarily the allegations, but that the allegations have appeared in important places. As such, it is my view (unless someone presents convincing evidence to the contrary) that it is not against wikipedia policy to have an article about them, as long as the article makes it clear that there is some doubt about their truthfulness. It would be helpful, for example, if some sources critical of this view were also found - they could then be added in. There's one currently (on the FSB accusations) but he's apparently a government employee (?). A rebuttal from a more neutral source, if one could be found, would be a good thing to add. Esn 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Request from a problematic (?) user
At Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus two users (so far) have mentioned that "many Russian users have problem with my behaviour" and "Russian editors have all shown the huge frustration from [my behaviour]." I'd appreciate comments - here or there - on whether this is the case and whether this sweeping generalization is indeed true. I ws not aware of any behaviour of mine which would have been negativly perceived by the Russian community on en wiki, but if this is the case, I'd appreciate any comments on how this may be fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Kpjas/Signpost/Russian Interwiki Report
On another note, this never was finished enough to appear in Signpost - but it is already half-done, perhaps somebody could finish it?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapaev or Chapayev?
Please join Talk:Vasily Chapayev `'mikka 21:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to be resolved now.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian loanwords
I was looking at the Category:Russian loanwords today, and found it to be, erm, somewhat messy. Some of the words are OK, some are not even loanwords but transliterations used for the lack of better term, some use random alternative spellings as titles of the articles. How would folks feel if the category is cleaned up? My main itch is to move some of the articles to the names used by Oxford English Dictionary and by Merriam-Webster's Unabridged International Edition or, when there are several equally acceptable alternatives, use the ones closest to WP:RUS (this is for consistency sake). Change examples would include moving borscht to "borshch" (acceptable alternative per both dictionaries) or "borsch" (used as main entry title by both dictionaries), krai to "kray" (used as a main entry in OED), removing aerosan and liberast from the category (not listed in any of the dictionaries, so can't be loanwords), etc. I'd appreciate some comments before I do anything, though. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For 'borsch'/'borshch'/'borscht'/'barszcz', the spelling 'borscht' seems to be the most common in English (try Google, with restriction by language) - mostly due to Borscht Belt and its summertime denizens, I guess. Though it is well may be thought of as a Yiddish (or Polish?) loanword in English, rather than Russian one. Vmenkov 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That very well may be the case, but remember that we are an encyclopedia, not a google zeitgeist. If we are striving to produce the best and the most accurate encyclopedia in the world, we'd better start relying on academic sources more and on google less, wouldn't you agree?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No argument that Google stats should be taken with a grain of salt - usage in something like major newspapers and magazines is much preferred. I used the Google argument mostly to support my impression that 'borscht' is the predominant spelling (at least in the US), although, admittedly, it is mostly based on 'Borscht Belt' and seeing something called 'borscht' (oy vey!) in kosher sections of supermarkets, rather than say on "World Cuisine" cookbooks and restaurants reviews. Vmenkov 03:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, when I looked at the jar of borshch in my pantry yesterday, the label said "red borsch", not "borscht". It was made in Poland by Gracovia for US export.  Just out of curiosity, I'm going to check other brands in the grocery store this jar came from.  Anyway, would you have any other comments regarding the proposal above?  Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Altay messed up by ËB in 1911
See Talk:Altay Mountains. `'mikka 00:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Coat of Arms of the Sakhalin Oblast.svg
I am not sure if there is an infobox for Oblasts, but here is an image yall can use, created by me. Enjoy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Kremlin.ru
Kremlin.ru was deleted out of process. Restoring. Please see what's going on. `'mikka 00:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

the website says "no restriction provided reference given":
 * All materials on the Presidential website may be reproduced in any media outlets, on Internet servers or on any other information supports without restriction on the amount of material and time of publication. This authorisation covers equally newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV channels and Internet sites. The only condition is that any reproduction or broadcasting of the website’s materials contain a reference to the original source. No prior approval from the Presidential Press and Information Office is required to reprint information from the website.
 * The template was deleted on the Wikimedia Commons, which was the reason why I had the template deleted on en.wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked every wikipedia has their own rules. `'mikka 01:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * doesn't allow modification thus is not free.Geni 01:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in best Soviet traditions: everything not allowed is forbidden. Upside-down logic. `'mikka 01:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem is that the Kremlin does not state if the modification of images is allowed or not. In our case after March 2007, [if the template doesn't meet this it's gone and so are the images. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

TFD is at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 22. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Muzhik
It turns out that Mujik quietly sits here since 2004. Also, "muzhik" was deleted, recreated and deleted again. So I guess, there is a need in this wikipedia article after all. Does anyone care to make it reasonably wikipedic? For those who may wish to undertake this (with references and all), here are the copies of deleted texts, for hints, in addition to Mujik':.

Muzhik, v.1.00
Muzhik is an untranslatable Russian word; at base an informal reference to a man, similar to "dude" or "chap."

The word is frequently used as a form of colloquial address among friends, and in other contexts is often used to distinguish a man from a gentleman. Historically, the word muzhik was used to refer to a peasant man, both before and after the freeing of the serfs (1861).

In the English-speaking world, the word is most frequently encountered in translations of Russian literature from before the Russian Revolution (1917); and in early communist writings, such as Lenin's On the 'Nature' of the Russian Revolution (1908).

Also transliterated moujik, mujik, or muzjik.

Muzhik, v.2.00
Muzhik (Russian мужик) - a male, possibly of 'low' (e.g. peasant) descent

Depending on the context, the meaning can be:

- a casual term for a man, similar to "dude" in American English

- a derogative term for an uncultured man

- a positive term for a masculine person, displaying such qualities as strength, courage, etc. This excludes physical beauty though.

an extra mujik
Also: MUJIK - Argentinian electro punk band from Buenos Aires

Enjoy, `'mikka 23:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Reworked the article
I've improved the article somewhat, increasing its readability and adding several senses of the word. Removed the tag after finishing this, too. IgorSF 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Red army crimes in Lithuania
Can anyone examine this article for NPOV? I've placed the tag, but it was removed. Conscious 14:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is very POV, which isn't surpising given that it was mostly written by the same person, who appears to be pursuing an agenda. I've readded the tag, along with some explanation. I'm not entirely convinced an article with such name can exist without being POV (although the events described in it certainly deserve to be covered somewhere) - simply denoting an activity as a crime goes a long way to establish POV. IgorSF 22:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I listed this chaotic article for deletion. It says nothing new, so nothing is to salvage. `'Miikka 23:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For some time now, the only memorable thing that happened at Red Army atrocities (WWII) was that its talk page (!) was put into the Wikiproject Estonia (very appropriate, of course - unless Digwuren was doing this in a convoluted way to know what Petri Krohn thinks about Alfred De Zayas, because that is where User:AuthorDionysos got his stuff). You are not going to get the text deleted anyway, so let it be merged with Red Army atrocities (WWII). I know it could be explained as WP:Beans, but if they are happy to keep it, let them have it and correct it.--Pan Gerwazy 02:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is NOTHING new in the article which is not already somewhere in wikipedia. If someone more experienced writes proper text, no problemo, but to keep this naive babble is stupid. Especially how Red Army damaged Lithuanian nature. Killer. `'Miikka 03:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that at least was new. I agree that, rationally, there is nothing to salvage at this moment. BUt rationality is long gone in this area of Wikipedia. Did you see how User:Biophys voted on the AFD for Allied occupation of Europe? Now that was a killer. --Pan Gerwazy 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merging is a reasonable suggestion, but only if the text to be merged is first changed into something NPOV, well-sourced, and properly written. At this time, it's not much beyond "Russian army is very bad", only with poorer grammar. IgorSF 03:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the article sources seems to be school textbook. Yury Tarasievich 07:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, if it is a copy violation, I'll be ochen rad to change my vote. --Pan Gerwazy 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again: agree, but the author has been forum shopping already. Let him have his pound of flesh and put it where it belongs. You do not really think that there are no other pages like that on Wikipedia? Have alook at Litene. --Pan Gerwazy 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Litene article in not "like that". I am surprized you don't see very serious differences. `'Miikka 15:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Army camp Litene is notorious for treacherous murder of the Latvian army personnel by the NKVD after occupation of Latvia by Soviet Union." Comes from "Today army camp Litene is notorious for treacherous murder of the Latvian army personnel by the Soviets after occupation of Latvia by Soviet Union (bearing certain similarity to murder of Polish military personnel by Soviets in Katyn)" (that is and is actually better English). There is a list of army officers assassinated with one name in it, there is an alternative spelling of the name in the article (Liténe) (there is also a Viksne and a Visknes in the references), a link to "Litene Manor" which has nothing to do with the massacre and which should be linked from the Litenes parish ::::: In fact the short text manages to say the same thing (Latvian officers were assassinated at Litene in 1941) five times. That is not the result of additions by merger: the start-off had three versions already. Basically, as this is using English sources it may LOOK better on the surface, but because of the need of copy editing to avoid the charge of copy vio, the Wikipedia version is worse than the original. The whole thing is structureless as well.--Pan Gerwazy 16:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I am still surprized. The major, gross, super, extra, absolute difference between the two is as Litene has actual meaningful, specific content (about events), hence salvageable. Copyedit is not big deal. The babble that Red army did real bad things is not. When ignorant but ignited people start writing a heap of articles Good things Red Army did in Lithuania,  Bad things Red Army did in Lithuania,  Not so bad things Red Army did in Lithuania, but it was not good anyway, Bad things NKVD did in Lithuania, Bad things Lithuanians themselves did in Lithuania to fellow Lithuanians, Bad things Lithuanians did in Lithuania to liberating Workers' and Peasants' Red Army, to push various points, this will be a mess. `'Miikka 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, let us indeed concentrate on the matter at hand. I agree with what you are saying, of course. However, having noticed what this guy is doing (the bit that he wants to add to Red Army does not have this childish "bad guys" thing so much, but it is total POV and non-factual anyway), I would act differently. And howcome he has not got blocked yet?--Pan Gerwazy 20:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because he is not disruptive yet. And I guess he is not aware of WP:CIVIL policy. `'Miikka 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Now our angry colleague started a whole Category:Red_Army_crimes. `'Miikka 03:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And look at We need your help. Max S em 06:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And he made a subcategory to that. Category:Red Army crimes during the Russian Civil War Some admins still thinking this is a fresh newbie? He has been on Wikipedia since the beginning of 2006. --Pan Gerwazy 07:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The latest stage in the vaudeville: after his short block, he accused the KGB Internet troll squads of hacking the history of his talk page and ... wrote an article about it. That it got speedily deleted only fueled his suspicions: now he believes the same brigades put something in his article to get it speedily deleted... --Pan Gerwazy 23:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Latest state of events: Have a good look at the first paragraph by User:eaolson. --Pan Gerwazy 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems the guy needs to write a paper very fast: . I suggest when voting NOT to address him personally and NOT to comment on his comment about your vote. Within five days, the circus may be over. --Pan Gerwazy 00:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the latest comments at Talk:Red_army_crimes_in_Lithuania explain this situation somewhat. It looks like User:Ttturbo is well-known for his rather radical views even in Lithuanian Wikipedia, from which he was banned for the same. I did a bit of browsing, and found what appears to be his userpage there. Having no idea about Lituanian, I was still able to understand a few things - for example, take a look here. Furthermore, it appears that  he was indeed blocked from lt.wiki for a year. IgorSF 08:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All this taken together show that User:Ttturbo may not be able to contribute reasonably, at least to topics dealing with "Red Army crimes." (По-русски я бы выразился проще: участник неадекватен). In any case, I think we would be correct in concluding now that WP:AGF no longer applies to these events, so appropriate response can be more radical now. IgorSF 08:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lithuanian calendar helps when you only recognize "Liepa". You are right, this is obviously the same guy. His recent contributions were mainly to, a very familiar-looking page. This is (tt)Turbo adding his grandmother to the Marijampole article on Lithuanian wiki. He was interested in archeology and Dnyepr Balts from January 2006 (the same thing is visible in his 2006 English contributions). Was he writing a historical treatise then too? He did disappear for half a year on English wiki. Two possibilities occur to me: one, he is using the active side of Wikipedia to write a paper for his school. That is more or less OK, provided he does not disrupt wiki:help, which he is doing. Surely, those benevolent guys cannot be expected to do the homework of school children? It would also explain why he is thanking even some people who vote speedy delete when they give a source. A more sinister possiblity is that his teacher or professor actually told him to write an article and get it published on Wikipedia. Hm - why am I thinking of the Tartu University cabal ganging on User:Petri Krohn now? As for the block or ban - if he was banned for a year, as googling "metai" suggests (that would mean he cannot use Lithuanian wiki for one of the two purposes he may be using Wikipedia, not even next year) - WP:ANI is the solution, as he is going to return. In the meantime, we must be warning people at wp:help to ignore him.--Pan Gerwazy 09:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like this incident is over. The page has been deleted, and the guy indefblocked. IgorSF 01:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)