User talk:Russavia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Kharkiv North Airport

Hello Russavia! You made a move without providing any meaningful rationale that could be verified against documents from recognized organizations. Please discuss this matter here - Talk:Kharkiv Sokolniki Airport#Requested move. Your input is much appreciated as I'd like to resolve this matter rather quickly. Thanks. Solarapex (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Asia subregions for west

I know West Asia article now redirects to Southwest Asia but if there is a Southwest Asia region then shouldnt there also be West Asia and Northwest Asia? for example Southeast Asia region is named so because there is an East Asia and a Northeast Asia, so why not the same subregions for West Asia, in my opinion countries Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia as well as Southern Russia should be in this region, it would also make more sense for airline destination lists rather than placing these countries in Southwest Asia and reslove the issue of placing Turkey and these countries in Europe which some people are doing. Hope you all will consider this.117.102.28.52 (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos of the Russian Consulate in Houston

I got shots of the Russian Consulate in Houston.

I got a closeup of the seal, and a shot of the entranceway. Which one do you want to include on your userpage? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Russavia, do you want me to post the photo myself? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Drukair, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Louisiana Airways

An article that you have been involved in editing, Louisiana Airways, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Airways. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Eastmain (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

RfM

Only one more signature required. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Sp

In english - it is consensus - I dont mean to embarrass you but that other spelling at the mediation thing sticks out like your usage of cyrillic in your sig - SatuSuro 15:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't embarrass me, the fact what I have written is over 18 months in length, now that is embarrassing, thankfully not for me. --Россавиа ^Диалог 17:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

To be not able to spell consensus correctly in a mediation case would bother me, the fact that many users do not have cyrllic script enabled would further interest anyone sceptical of your claims or issues at a place like a mediation case - try just once to think the way someone else might think about it SatuSuro 23:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Seal of Russia

Seal of Russia

I figured out the license of the seal and uploaded it! I have that photo and the photo of the entrance to the Russian Consulate. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Re SIA as Government owned corporation

I read through the edit wars, and I'm actually in favour of your position. Your argument is 100% logical, substantiated by 3rd party sources and correct. I think users like user:Huawei is yet another atypical Singaporean who in their 1950's-like carefully constructed "Pleasantville" Pleasantville_(film) and has difficulty processing inconvenient truths and fact outside their "Politburo" approved knowledge for Singaporeans. It's common- I'm from Indonesia- we have to put up with this anti-intellectual Singaporean behaviour propaganda, ignorance and bigotry all the time. See their crappy "Die Sturmer"-esque tabloid: "The Straits Times" for a good laugh about how they perceive the globe revolves around their quaint US-UK colonial outpost. More than happy to back up your position in any edit conflict- your new friend from Indonesia!Starstylers (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, you serial pest starstylers :) SatuSuro 15:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And I just saw that too! Hey Starstylers, at least spell my name correctly next time, yeah, for I am not a Chinese company? ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Violation of MOS:IMAGES

Please stop violating MOS:IMAGES which says "Examples of images which typically need more than the default size include lead images and detailed maps." and maps used in missions articles are both lead and detailed. It's fine, you made a mistake, no big deal but you have to stop now.--Avala (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already gone on the record as saying I would not be touching the maps, and I have ceased doing so. But note that the same MOS you quote says that lead images should be resized to around 300px, these maps are done at 500px; that may be a bit too much in size. --Россавиа ^Диалог 19:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say that they should be 300px but that they are often 300px. But when you have a map where you are supposed to see Monaco you can only go with 500px. I have resized some maps with less detail to 400 or 450px some were left on 300px etc.--Avala (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, no prob there. On a sidenote, in future assume good faith, as it doesn't appear to myself that you have done so, apologies if you have, but the way in which one approaches myself has a lot to do with how I respond to them, and add in User talk:Kransky#no consensus_edits it just makes me think that perhaps AGF wasn't assumed. Unfortunately, these diplomatic mission articles are in violation of so many guidelines and policies it is going to be a massive task to sort them out. And directly related to one of the major violations, WP:EL, I see you have turned the external links on Diplomatic missions of Serbia into references; technically this could still possibly be construed as being in violation of WP:EL; the fact that a mission exists can be directly referenced to the Serbian MFA site (ref link no.2 from memory). Why don't you turn the article into something along the lines of Diplomatic missions in Russia, and with Ambassadors of Serbia, turn that into a similar article (in terms of formatted lists), except in that list have more detailed information, such as diplomatic rank, date of appointment, date of credentials presented, etc. I will be doing something similar with the Russian article, because frankly, as the majority of lists stand right now, they are directory listings...they need to be more detailed if they are to be taken seriously as proper articles. --Россавиа ^Диалог 20:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

References are not used only for the simple data in question next to a ref number but also for a further reading which can be done through links which you are removing. Also if you are hoping for expansion of these articles you need to stop removing information like information on honorary consulates as it is not only noteworthy but sometimes important as much as the rest of the article if these honorary consuls have been accredited as consuls or even in some cases ambassadors.--Avala (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In regards to honorary consuls, I would suggest taking that up with Kransky, and he will be able to direct you to whereever consensus has been reached that honorary consuls are not included in articles. In regards to reverting my changes to articles removing EL from articles, that is in fact in violation of WP:EL and WP:SPAM; particularly when there is a reference for the information already contained in the article; I would not suggest reverting these changes. --Россавиа ^Диалог 21:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am telling you that some honorary consuls are also ambassadors or active consules or consule-generals and that you can't just remove it blindly. If you don't have a source to back it up do not remove that information. And please don't direct me at non-binding guidelines which are not even related especially the one about spam as if referencing the embassy website where further information can be found was some kind of advertisement (which it is not).--Avala (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also I noticed that you don't have a basic understanding of diplomacy. If two countries, entities whatever don't maintain diplomatic relations or even worse if one doesn't recognize another they can't have an article on relations here as such relations simply do not exist. For an example we can't have Israel-Malaysia relations, simply anything in the article would be either off topic (dealing with a topic of non-existence of relations where the title should be different and where it shouldn't be linked from the main diplomatic relations template and categories) or a fantasy (where editors would make up relations which do not exist in reality). --Avala (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Avala, in regards to honorary consuls, please take that up with Kransky and crowd, as they are the ones who deemed that they don't belong. And in regards to the links, whilst WP:EL is a guideline, WP:NOT#LINKS is policy and those articles are in clear violation of the policy. I think it is now about time for a request for comment on all of these articles, because it seems that too many editors want articles to remain in violation of core WP policies, and outside comment is going to be required. As another editor has stated, compare List of diplomatic missions in Russia to List of diplomatic missions in India, and the latter article may as well not even exist. In regards to my lack of understanding, I understand full well how diplomacy works; and I know you are talking in relation to Kosovo-Russia relations....for the record my own opinion is that Kosovo is part of Serbia, and will be until such time as both sides reach a compromise solution....however, the fact there are not official relations does not mean that two countries can't have relations....the mere fact that Israel bombed Osirak in Iraq, and Iraq sent scud missiles into Tel Aviv is evidence that there are relations between the two countries......hostile relations. By the reasoning you have presented, Cuba-US relations wouldn't exist, neither would Taiwan-US relations. --Россавиа ^Диалог 21:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But why in the world would we add such relations to a template listing articles about diplomatic relations? The article could be independent and called Russian reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence like Czech Republic's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence or as a subsection within Serbia-Russia relations that would be fine, but Kosovo-Russia relations is not.--Avala (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia and Kosovo don't have bilateral relations. It's not a pov but a fact that can be checked quite easily at http://www.mid.ru/ns-reuro.nsf/strana. As you can see there is no Kosovo so putting Kosovo-Russia relations under bilateral relations category is OR.--Avala (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the articles are not just about diplomatic relations, but bilateral foreign relations. Such relations include not only diplomatic relations, but also military ties, trade ties, cultural ties, transport ties, and other ties. Mind you, I am not the editor responsible for starting the article. If you don't think it belongs, take it to WP:AFD. --Россавиа ^Диалог 21:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That is the point. There are no bilateral relations of any kind either. Any type of existing relations are officially considered to be relations with Serbia not with Kosovo. And stop referring to my edits as POV as I gave you an official link so it is you who is making POV original research edits not backed up with references, not me.--Avala (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If that is the point, then go ahead and remove Cuba-US relations. To give you another example from a part of the world abut which not much is known. Bhutan is one of the most isolated countries in the world and has diplomatic relations with only a handful of countries - it doesn't have relations with the UK, US, Russia, China or France - it borders China, doesn't have any type of official relations with China, yet China regularly incurs onto Bhutanese territory and has actually gone so far as to build roads in Bhutanese territory; Bhutan protests this; China tells Bhutan to stop over-reacting. The mere fact that there are no official relations between the two countries, does not mean that relations do not exist. That is the point. --Россавиа ^Диалог 22:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I will also add Avala, that when I first saw the Kosovo-Russia article, my first thought was to merge it into the Russia-Serbia article, however the dip missions was my first priority. I find it somewhat odd that given what I said above on my own opinion on Kosovo, that you would post on Kransky's talk page that I am pushing a pro-Kosovo POV. Seems a bit odd don't you think? Perhaps it is because I am pushing a NPOV stance on the issue; regardless of my own POV. The major problem that I have with what you have done to that article is removed content in its entireity and simply setup a redirect. Like I said, if you don't believe the article is warranted, then take it to WP:AFD or propose a WP:MERGE (which by the way I had intentions of following up with in due course anyway), but to do that is not justified, and neither are all of the tags at the bottom of the article which you placed (a hoax, is going just a bit too far overboard). So nominate for AFD or propose a merge, and do it that way. --Россавиа ^Диалог 22:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actions and words are not the same thing. You are making silly POV pro Kosovo edits which are supposed to make us think that Kosovo and Russia have relations while they don't. You are comparing it with Bhutan which is pointless as there it's simply about diplomatic relations and here it is a POV - whether Russia is having bilateral relations when it builds a road in Kosovo with Kosovo or with Serbia. According to Russia it's with Serbia. Or the real life example - when Russia sent their aid to Kosovo Serbs they did it in agreement with government in Belgrade, not with Pristina.--Avala (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well propose the merge or take it to AFD, the wholesale removal of content, although unreferenced (but could easily be done) isn't really the way it should be done. Propose the merge, and I will support it. Or do the merge properly by following Wikipedia:Merge#Performing the merger, so that content can be moved to the Russia-Serbia article inline with GFDL. Do you now see where I am coming from? --Россавиа ^Диалог 23:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the section in Russia-Serbia relations with that information.--Avala (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, all that is left to do now is to complete the merger. Would you like to do this? Or want someone else to? --Россавиа ^Диалог 10:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I merged them.--Avala (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

DPRK diplomatic missions

Good work on the referencing of all the DPRK missions Kransky (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have found a few missing ones. I suggest removal of DR Congo, Eq. Guinea for the time being because I can't find any source to back that up. Probably they used to have a mission there a long time ago.--Avala (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

clean up using AWB

Please stop the clean up using AWB. It's simply not good to automatically change articles because sometimes images need a bigger or smaller size.--Avala (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the articles and images are in violation of Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size, hence why they are being changed, along with false references, external links which aren't needed, superfluous see alsos and a host of other problems which will start to be rectified in these articles. --Россавиа ^Диалог 17:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size clearly says "Where size forcing is appropriate, larger images should generally be a maximum of 550 pixels wide, so that they can comfortably be displayed on 800x600 monitors.". So stop pushing for something that is not a policy. Resized images are allowed. Some users are already thinking of stating up an arbitration on your edits which are considered harmful and violative to consensus.--Avala (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and start up abitration. First off we have useless lists in which editors are not allowed to give any details at all. Lists which are violations of WP:FLAGS, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:EL, WP:SPAM. Editors who don't understand normal categorisation of articles on WP. Can you tell me why forcing of images in these articles are required? And if the issue of all that white space is even mentioned, forcing of image sizes is not suitable because of lists which are set up poorly. Take Diplomatic missions in Russia, forcing of images in that article is required in order for it to keep the table in tact. In the other articles, it is merely cosmetic due to the article owners not having an understanding of what a list should be used for, and throw insulting comments about creating content; compare Diplomatic_missions_in_Russia to say Diplomatic missions of Qatar, and tell me if I should be insulted by such ridiculous comments. Also, look at your reverts, in which you have wholesale changed edits made to entire articles, that is not on either. --Россавиа ^Диалог 14:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, forcing the larger map size is due to detail which can't be seen at default size. Qatar is too small and Bahrain is even smaller for it to be seen on default size and the map is therefore resized to a larger size. Regardless if it is the map of countries with missions in small countries or small countries' missions map - they often need to be larger to avoid unnecessary clicks and further loading. Plus you have never sought the community support for your actions ie. consensus, you are acting solely based on your own will which quite possibly contradicts the will of editor community and it shows your selfishness where you think you are the only person right while everyone else is wrong. --Avala (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think that the reasoning for forcing the size of map images is warranted. However, I will not edit those sizes at the time being, but will rather seek some outside opinion and will advise you accordingly where I have posted it. And I take extreme issue to your selfishness comments, as I try to always act within the policies of WP, and the above mentioned policy is one which I believe I have acted within. It is yet to be seen if there is consensus for the sizing of these images, but consensus which strictly goes against policy is not valid. On a side note, Diplomatic missions of Serbia, I have removed the long list of external links under the policy of WP:EL, and have also removed the long list of internal links under WP:SPAM; the articles of individual embassies can be accessed via Category:Diplomatic missions of Serbia. If it is important to have these links in the article, then perhaps a set up similar to Diplomatic missions in Russia is required? --Россавиа ^Диалог 16:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And I will state, on the record, that I will continue to remove forced sizing of photographs, as that is clearly against the image sizing policy. --Россавиа ^Диалог 16:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You can fantasize all you want, but this sentence is still part of the policy "Where size forcing is appropriate, larger images should generally be a maximum of 550 pixels wide, so that they can comfortably be displayed on 800x600 monitors." and it's there with the damn good reason.--Avala (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you the policy you linked (and probably didn't read) Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size specifically says that images can (not can't) be resized to a different size (up to 550px is considered fine in usual circumstances) and I think it's appropriate to have them resized in some articles. Thanks for your input anyway but in the future please ensure that your edits reflects consensus and if other editors have pointed out to you that you misunderstood some WP policy consider discussing it on the talk page where others will happily clarify it for you. --Avala (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And why is it appropriate here to resize images to override users personal preferences? Gross amounts of white space is not a valid reasoning for this. Regardless, there is no consensus on this issue, and I have posted at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Forced_image_sizes in order to get comment on this; as you can see from other comments there, I am not misinterpreting the policy, and my edits to remove forced sizing are indeed correct --Россавиа ^Диалог 11:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes right there it says that it is now perfectly fine to set the size manually (even though the responding user is not glad about it).--Avala (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Consulate-General of Russia in Houston

Russavia, you may like this article: Consulate-General of Russia in Houston WhisperToMe (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded an image of the skyscraper this is housed in; if you want you can use that on your Dipmis page. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bhutan

Hi. Nice work on Drukair!! Yes I added most of the cities and towns in Bhutan and created the maps. I wasn't aware that the project was so inactive which is a shame. If you require a map of the destinations I wouldn't be able to do that, I mostly only add pin maps to settlements or mountains. Regards ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I will look into that later, Could you find me the Russian wikipedia link or site for Moshonki and expand it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow thats quite a Moshonki huh?

I;ve added a comment to the Bhutan diplomacy article. I am somewhat confused however at your earlier comment that we were missing an article as if it was a larger city. I wouldn't have started it if I was under the impression it was a village ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that I have been filled in on the Moshonki joke.

I thought I filled you in on the joke on Ezhiki's page. Looking back at it, somehow I deleted the bit where I specifically filled you in; albeit it after it's creation. For the record, Moshonki is this in Russian. And to fill you in on the rest, Popki is a**, and Kozloduy, well that means, ummmmm, someone who performs oral sex on do you dare click on the link to find out???. I think both Ezhiki and myself can attest you have now complete Russian 101 : The important bits ;) At the very least, we now have a non-refutable source for the existence of Moshonki selo. Who said WP couldn't be fun, as well as educational? --Россавиа ^Диалог 21:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Moshonki

Hey, we don't have one on Bzdyuli (near Kirov) either :) If I had anything to write about them apart from the location and jurisdiction, I would most certainly created them if only for cheap laughs, but I am yet to sort this and this load of crap. That said, if you have interesting facts about those places, go wild :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Updates

Thanks for tweaking those templates (although I believe both "navbox" and "Navbox" are functional; the latter just looks better) and for a good chuckle caused by that youtube video you linked to. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I completely missed your update to your yesterday's post today, so I am going to reply tomorrow or later (looks like there is a lot of background reading involved). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

CIS flag is welcome

A CIS flag would be welcome if CIS has made any announcement regarding the war. I am in strong support of image-rich articles in Wikipedia and I believe that readers should be able to follow the article both visually and textually. The images are relevant since what the image caption says is also said in the main article. Images help to make our encyclopedia look better, attract the reader's attention, and help the reader visually navigate in the article during scrolling (the NATO flag was placed next to the text about NATO statement). A Russian flag with Russian MFA statements would be great too, if you feel like adding one. NerdyNSK (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Archiving in Ossetia

Hi. Could you please take a look at the section about archiving at Talk:2008 South Ossetia War? What archiving parameters did you set up? Cheers, BalkanFever 12:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The bot archives once in every 24 hour period, archiving threads which have no answer in 24 hours. Unfortunately, if discussions are still ongoing, we can't go archiving if discussion is still taking place on it. --Россавиа ^Диалог 14:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK cool. It's going to be annoying when new users and anons (unknowingly) respond to the older threads, though. Ah well, at least we've got the system set up. BalkanFever 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Inuse on South Ossetia War

Are you going to be doing that - we've established consensus to give you the go-ahead on it. Kingnavland (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Drukair

I reckon that article has featured potential eventually. I'll have a read through tomorrow and if it is up to scratch I'll nominate it for a GA. It will need a peer review sometime but keep up the good work on it. I've started Tourism in Bhutan, I reckon a full resourceful article could be written on it too if you want to expand it, ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, however, I'd prefer if you could hold off on nominating it for GA for the time being, as there is a lot of information which I have yet to add including:

• Early years regarding aircraft being based in India
• The shitstorm that has occurred this year with flights being scheduled during the day
• Operational restrictions which it deals with (just trying to work out how best to put this in the article, and where)
• The aircraft which was out of service for a year due to corrosion and its effects.
• Mountain flights - a must do I think if ever going to Bhutan
• Employee problems and brain drain issues
• Bits and pieces of financial information.

Once I have completed that, then I believe it will be possible for it to reach GA status...perhaps it could reach it already, but I'd prefer for it to only go thru the process once, rather than two or three times, if you know where I am coming from.

In regards to the Tourim in Bhutan article, what I will do is move that information that you have already presented into my own userspace and expand and edit it from there, and then post it back to mainspace once really expanded. This way, if I/we can now expand it five-fold, it can be nominated for WP:DYK as the Drukair was on 30 July. Of course it could be nominated for WP:DYK now, although I think it needs a little more clarification, such as the restrictions put in place to restrict to high-end cultural tourism (US$200 per day requirement, enter or leave country by Drukair, no individual tourism, etc). But its a good start all the same and could be put up for DYK if you want to try that? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Oh I am always keen for an article to reach its full potential in terms of content before nominating it for anything. I could prbably expand the article five fold now using the initial source which has a lot of info on it. Might be best though to use a variety of sources and write it using these. Good luck! I'll pop in to see how Drukair is developing ina week or two. Let me know on my talk page when you have developed the Tourism article as you seem to know about it anyway. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For creating a lot of useful articles! -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Il-86

Media:Il-86Hello! Thank you for your corrections regarding the manufacturers.

In fact, I recall that the Il-86 was especially intended for joint production with Poland. This was an exercise to boost what was sometimes called the "iron triangle" (GDR/Czechoslovakia/Poland) between the USSR and the West. Another point is that WSK-Mielec was no subcontractor in the sense of a fully competent factory which was waiting to do the job. It had no experience of anything bigger than a jet trainer and, to part-make a wide-body, had to have a huge amount of technology transferred to it by the Russians (titanium, honeycomb structures, you-name-it) to cope with the task it was set. It was also intended to make the wing. It never did make the wing, most likely due to the Polish troubles of the 1980s. Trouble is, I cannot recall where I read (or more likely heard) this (probably at Flight, where I worked as a stringer) and so cannot bring any references to bear. So it stays as it is after your correction. If I strike lucky and find them (and if they are able to be published!), I shall bring them out into the open.

Can I ask you a favour? Please let me know what I can do in your opinion to get the article a higher rating than C. Please don't spend ages on it but let me have a general opinion of where it needs tweaking. I have asked Trevor MacInnis but he is clearly busy, so no joy there.

Much obliged in advance.Peter Skipp (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

List of diplomatic missions in Hanoi

I see that the phonebook stuff is gone, so this article does make a lot more sense to me now. I'll go ahead and change to keep. Aaronw (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about CFD

I've left you a question regarding one of your recent category nominations. See here. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Embassy of Russia in Luxembourg

I know the Russian Embassy fairly well as I pass it about once every two weeks when I go to visit my sister. I have no clue where the Consulate is and will have to look it up on a map. In principle I can take the pictures (I've never actually approached the Embassy compound (unlike some other embassies I've never had a reason to protest in front of it), so I don't know what kind of pictures I can take). But I won't have an opportunity in the coming weeks. If you are in a hurry I can ask someone from Luxembourgish language Wikipedia.--Caranorn (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok

Shure, Ill try to find it on the internet. When I do, can you please tell me how to download it, Im new. Thank you very muchRussian Luxembourger (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Russian Luxembourger

Layout choice

Without doubt, I like the second version better (the one using tables). The downside to using tables is that the page loads much slower on slow connections, but I think the benefit of being able to sort the table outweighs that downside in spades. It also helps provide links to the individual embassies more neatly than a list-only approach would allow: with lists the pages are extremely long with a lot of unused white space. Pictures of individual embassies are located in the corresponding rows in the table; with lists, one would have to hunt them down on the right side, which is not very easy considering the article's length. Does that help you any?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not forgotten, just am, I guess, procrastinating (sorry!). Is there any urgency to this, by the way, or can I take my time? If there is, I will, of course, move this to the top of my list. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the overall importance of having a tabulated list over having a plain vanilla bulleted lists, I have to say that it is not very high for this type of content (i.e., which is of mid to low importance on the assessment scale). However, since the topic has a vast potential for growth and currently receives a fair amount of editors' attention (even if the only active contributor is you), in my opinion, it means that the styling choice should depend on preferences of the editors who work on that content, providing that those preferences do not conflict with usability issues and break no MOS styling guidelines. Having someone walk-in on your work and start telling that it is, as far as formatting it goes, no good, is at best rude and at worst disruptive and unproductive. I diligently tried to follow the discussions and the RfC, and although the whole picture is still not very whole in my head, I am getting an impression that your formatting choice is being opposed simply because someone clearly does not like it (for reasons I am still having trouble to understand). A bulleted list for a topic like this is a good solution in the beginning, when the list is incomplete and only the most important points need to be addressed from the article creation point of view. As the contents grow, however, a bulleted list becomes not only unwieldy from the workflow organization point of view, but also confusing to readers, which means other solutions need to be sought. Laying out the contents in a table is often such a solution, as it allows for presenting the contents in a more compact and organized manner.

Creating a separate ambassadors of Russia article is probably inevitable in the long run, but at this point, considering the sheer number of red links, it seems to merely mirror a subset of data from the "diplomatic missions of Russia" article and serves no useful purpose (i.e., it provides no additional value).

All in all, process-wise, your work seems to be very similar to what I do (developing the articles about the administrative divisions of Russia; a process in which creation of lists plays an important role), so I very well understand (and, unfortunately, know from experience) how important it is to have a development process that works out for major contributors, even though it may occasionally come in conflict with formatting preferences of editors whose only interest (and sometimes ability) is in upholding their petty styling choices. You can count on my wholehearted support in this matter. As long as your formatting choices are in line with MOS (which they are), there should be no question in whose preferences are to be adopted (major contributors', duh!). My advice in dealing with formatting sticklers is to take a good look at WP:WIAFL and try to bring your styling choices in line with that guideline's recommendations (I assume you will want to nominate your work for FL once it is complete?). Item #4 of the guidelines, for example, explicitly recommends using table sort facilities, which alone should give you plenty of leverage. Same goes for visual appeal (#7)—once the red links are taken care of, the choice between an ugly long bulleted list and a neat table really becomes a no-brainer. Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I supplied my comments on that talk page and will keep watching it, so, I guess, I am now officially involved :) Please let me know if this spills over to somewhere else.

On an ironic note, having read Kransky's reasons and having applied them to my own Wikipedia work, it seems that I should have never even started to develop the administrative and municipal divisions of Adygea list (which is now featured), because, obviously, it is out of line with the formatting of every other list in the series (example 1, example 2). Now someone has to start working on 80+ other lists, oh noes, what a disaster! Perhaps we should simply revert the Adygea's list to this wonderfully consistent state, eh? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. I'll certainly keep an eye on the discussion. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Consulate General in Montreal.

Hi There Russavia. I took a picture of the Russian Consulate General in Montreal today. I posted it on Wikimedia Commons. I also share your passion for aviation. Keep soaring above the clouds! fr:Utilisateur:Phil13 70.83.104.216 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Format

Yep something like that just maybe a little bit simpler so that it wouldn't contain so many red links.--Avala (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So long as it is properly formatted and referenced, lists with red links are ok, and actually encouraged as it will encourage article development amongst editors. Just know up front, that any push to move away from what I believe is the boring current list format of most article is going to hit resistance with some editors. I was considering a push for consensus at WP:FOR, whilst at the same time alerting country wikiprojects so that their input in what is important for article development in their respective projects could also weigh in and have a true consensus. Also, all talk should take place at WP:FOR, not on category pages as has been happening in the past. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, you might want to rethink your strategy of "alerting country wikiprojects so that their input in what is important for article development in their respective projects could also weigh in and have a true consensus."

The parent project of the diplomatic mission articles is WikiProject International relations, and not the WikiProject of any particular country. We want consistency across all these articles, and not something different for Bhutan, something different for Russia etc.

Why does this matter? Consistency not only makes the articles look professional, but a "one rule fits all" prevents bias emerging. Kransky (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you would refer to Diplomatic missions in Russia, you will notice a few things. It is called Diplomatic missions in Russia. It is in a category, Russia-related lists, the content is in relation to Russia and other parts of the world, and the talk page specifically states that it is part of WP:'''RUSSIA'''. Articles are not the domain of any one project, and actually are not the domain of any project, they belong to the community at large, and the community at large is entitled to have its input. The way you are approaching this is that only WP:FOR members will edit these articles, but the fact is anyone can edit these articles, and different projects may have differing needs for development of articles within their scope that need to be taken into account. I will say one thing though, the current setup for the majority of the lists are not professional and don't look any good. As an uninvolved editor said, compare Diplomatic missions in Russia to List of diplomatic missions in India, and the Indian list may as well not even exist; it doesn't allow for any type of downline article development. I've asked some Russia project members for their opinion to see what is important for that wikiproject in terms of article development and hope to have their opinion before too long. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me try another tack to see if this convinces you. Suppose six months down the track somebody with a facination for all things Paraguayan decides to rewrite the Diplomatic Missions of Paraguay article. He gets his Project Italy buddies to support his ideas, and eventually their design becomes entrenched. We now have three different designs, breaking the overriding Wikipedia principle of consistency. Then a few months later the Paraguyan group start modifying Diplomatic Missions of Russia to make it fit with their syle, and you and they are going to be engaging in this debate again. Or maybe a fourth group comes over and starts inventing a new standard that could provoke a fifth group (say, removing Israeli embassies, or giving Northern Cypriot missions inappropriate status). I will agree with you that the Diplomatic Missions by receiving countries is inconsistent, and would think that these articles are in more dire need of standardisation. Kransky (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

DMBC

Should we take this dispute to third opinion or RfC? Kransky (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Haitian creole wikipedia

Hi Russavia,

You seem to not have merged your accounts or created one on our wikipedia (ht:Paj prensipal) You let us this message :

Please leave any messages for me on my talk page at the English Wikipedia here.

on a wrong page (i tried to redirect it but the right page didn't exist neither ...:-( )

Do tell me what you'd like to do. You can see the page there : http://ht.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diskisyon_Itilizat%C3%A8:Russavia&redirect=no

---

ht:iitlizatè:masterches —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterches (talk • contribs) 22:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi Russavia, Welcome in id.wiki, ms.wiki, and jv.wiki! Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome in su.wiki too! Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

well done

On 19 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Consulate-General of France in Saint Petersburg, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)