User talk:Russavia/Archive 14

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for you notification of me on your unblock, Russavia. I think that reflects well on you. I'm fine with this interim decision having been made and hope you can find some interesting things to work on to maybe get your mind off the recent troubles. I'm sure the ArbCom decision will answer at least some of these issues that are outstanding. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a bit of rescuing, and some sourcing. It contains some Russian aspects which you are probably not able to help with, but maybe you can tell me someone else who can. If we can source it properly, it could be a 5x DYK expansion. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I will help with what I can. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

On October 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Embassy of Russia in Copenhagen, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Many congratulations. So nice to see your valuable work acknowledged and appreciated after so long. Giano (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Giano. Thank you NVO. That's all I can say. :) --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I know we ought to be enemies. But... I'd like to bring Welles declaration to GA, and the reviewer mentioned the lack of local reactions - leaving an out for best search of EN sources. I try to be Martian about the subject, having read To the Person Sitting in Darkness in my youth. But my one semester of Russian doesn't help with finding sources. I'd really like this article to be balanced, so if you have any (narrowly scoped) comments, sources, or tapdances, pls mention here. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Novickas, why ought we be enemies? As far as I am concerned I will collaborate with anyone who is here to contribute to the building of this encyclopaedia, and because it is not important what we think personally, but what sources themselves say, there needn't be any conditions on WP which create an "us and them" atmosphere. Having said that, I would sincerely like to assist you in this, but I am currently under a 6 month topic ban which restricts me from "all articles, other pages or discussions having to do with the Soviet Union or its successor states (including Russia and the baltic states). In other words, you are banned from anything that involves Russians or Russia. The purpose of this ban, which also lasts for six months beginning yesterday, is to effectively remove you from a topic area in which you have been exhibiting unacceptable battleground-like behavior." The only thing that I am able to do is thank you for your offer, and to extend my apologies in that I will be unable to assist in anything to do with that article until at least March 2010. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why enemies? Problematic history. Altho it didn't stop Irpen and me, or M.K. and Ghirla, from being on friendly terms. I really miss Irp, and I said so on his talk page. Sorry to hear the terms of your topic ban prohibit any postings, even here - I'd like to go ahead with the article. Maybe later, being GA doesn't mean no mas. Novickas (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

True, but that's the their problematic history, not mine. I for one want to get rid of the bullshit in this arena of editing. Hopefully once my topic ban is finished, your offer will still stand and I can help with sources, information for which you asked help on, even though I find the subject matter a little bit boring, I am still willing to help with it. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

When I their problematic history, of course I mean those who use WP at a battleground. Not Ghirla, Irpen, etc. It would be great to get such editors back to WP, but I think that ship sailed a long, long, long time ago. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What would you think of organizing some sort of straw poll that asks the mailing list members to apologize. There's lot of well-known examples of apologies they could consider. In exchange we'd agree to not bring this Arbcom up against those who do. I'd like an out for sockpuppet investigations since this was extensively discussed on the mailing list. And yes, there could be non-apology apologies and yes, discussion of those will be seen as creating, oh no, drama. Just a thought. Novickas (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting thought, but the thing is, I am an adult and I believe that adults should acknowledge their wrong-doings without pressure. I have on occasion right here on WP been a stubborn prick, but once I have calmed down, I have realised my wrongs and I have done the right thing and apologised. If the members of the web brigade aren't adult enough to admit their wrongs and apologise for them on their own, then I believe that not a single one of them belongs on this project, and good riddance to the lot of them. Let them act like children elsewhere. But I do support you in doing that if you so choose to do so. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree with you in this sense: refusing to apologize often does work in the adult world. Because when defendants refuse to do this, they still aren't locked up forever, so it has some face-saving and strategic value, especiallly here since you can sock. You're brought the lack of apologies to everyone's attention, that's probably enough. Maybe later, Novickas (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with you that refusing to apologise often does work in the adult world, but it only works for so long, and it still leaves others wondering why, etc. Brought up the lack of taking of responsibility and the like yep, perhaps that is enough. I'm simply going to sit back and wait for others on the committee to comment, etc because NVO is right, so far it is only one arb's opinion that is present, but at least now it will be known that there is no remorse, etc. Say, also, one of my interests in editing is bilateral relations. Perhaps when I am able to edit again in certain areas, you wouldn't mind me contacting you and we can collaborate together on a certain bilateral relationship, which at the moment is pretty underdeveloped. What you think? --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[1]. Novickas (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, cool, I'll add you to the list of things to do and people to contact when the time is possible. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving your comment from The Plague RFC for reasons that will hopefully be obvious from my reply.

As this is relating to a currently running request for arbitration, it is inappropriate that discussions such as this take place as an RFC whilst that case is running. Suggestions should be made on the workshop of the case pages, rather than at an avenue such as this that parties to the case are probably not familiar with. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's way off base. "The Plague" is not you, and nor is it "the Eastern European Mailing List". It's a general problem - hence Moreschi's link in the RFC intro, User:Moreschi/The Plague/Nationalist hotspots. Nor are any of the innovative solutions that might be discussed in this brainstorming RFC, which as noted might lead to further RFCs on ideas worth exploring further, at all likely to be applied in the current EEML arbitration case. On the other hand, new ideas developing on the talk page there are likely to languish unexposed to people not already interested in these issues. Rd232 ^talk 07:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be way of base in your opinion Rd, but it is not way off base for myself. It is my opinion that I have put forward, and my opinion is that it is inappropriate to be holding discussions which are tangently related to an issue related to a currently active arbitration case, particularly as it is evident that editors who are under scrutiny have already used the initial AN thread to present/further push their views on the matter. So it can not be said that it is unlikely to be applied in a current case, for we don't know if that will be the case or not. As I said myself, I have some ideas on such a subject, but I will not do so outside of the currently running case and on the case pages themselves. Why not barnstorm on the relevant sections of the Arb pages instead; there is nothing stopping that from happening, and it will get opinions of those involved in the case as well, who may not otherwise know of the existence of the RFC. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/The Plague

Greetings, Russavia. It seems that this comment of yours concerns the RfC itself, rather than its topic, and so would be better suited to the talkpage. Would you be averse to moving it there? Thanks,  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure whether I would object to it being moved to the talk page or not. Please note my comments to Rd above, where I state that perhaps barnstorming by other editors on this subject can take place on the workshop pages of the current Arbitration case, and then after the Arbitration case is completed, an all encompassing discussion could take place. By holding some barnstorming on the Arbitration pages, other ideas for remedies may come up which can be considered by the Committee; that way we would also be able to judge how the Arbitration committee feels on such subjects, and the community can use this as a guide for things such as this. That's just the way that I feel on this subject at the moment. Do you understand where I am coming from? --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I would characterise your position as an objection to the RfC and/or the actions of those behind it, not as participation in it. If you think the discussion is a bad idea, or should take another form the talkpage is the place to raise those issues, no?  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be somewhat correct to characterise my position only as an objection to the RFC whilst the EEML case is still running; after that I would have no objection to the RFC and would participate myself; and that is only because it will likely delve into issues covered by the EEML case, and due to that, the EEML case pages would be the most appropriate place for discussion in that vein. So if editors believe my comments are best placed on the talk page of the case, then so be it, move it, but I did object to comments being removed completely and being dumped on my talk page. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we understand each other; I've moved the meta-discussion which hopefully will facilitate the development of both conversations. Thanks for your consideration in this,  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

On October 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Flag of Bhutan, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. 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) 14:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 17:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Air Botswana at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 16:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am currently under a "Russia" topic ban, and I am not allowed to edit on things relating to Russia or Russians. I have information which can be included in the article, in the privatisation process section, but because it relates to a Russian businessman, I am unable to add the information to the article, which would bump the article just over the 5x expansion requirement, and thereby making it eligible for DYK. Perhaps another editor wouldn't mind doing a search for information and adding the information to the article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Template_talk:Did_you_know#Air_Botswana I believe I have now expanded just over the requirement. I count 11,947 characters of prose in total. Is this all good now? --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added what I think was the information in question. Offliner (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll recheck the article. Thanks for doing that ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 19:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Offliner, that is pretty much the information. And thanks B.s.n.R.N. for alerting me to the shortfall. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You did a great job on it. keep um' coming :) ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 16:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

On October 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Air Botswana, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Bencherlite^Talk 21:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a notice: For a few users I have relocated your EEML evidence to a sub-page.

The reasons for this are because your sections are now so long it was becoming impossible to navigate and decipher who wrote what, particularly towards the end of sections. This effectively rendered your evidence as unusable, which was not a good thing.

Rather than reduce the size of your evidence (which I deemed as unfair) I have removed them to private subpages. These are yours and yours alone to edit. They certain make interpreting your evidence MUCH easier.

The downside is that when you update your evidence it does not go into the history log of the principal evidence page. Hence I suggest you add a brief "Updated evidence on ..." note beneath your evidence heading on the main evidence page. This will alert people to changes on your subpage. An extra bit of hassle I know, but it a small price for having evidence which can be understood.

Also feel free to create a single sentence description of your main headings and insert it on the main page below the link I have added. See for an example from a previous case.

I hope none of you are upset by this - I assure you my only objective was to increase the usability of your evidence.

Sincerely, Manning (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You wrote me in June 2008 about photos of diplomatic missions in Irkutsk. So, I have 2 photos: Mongolian and Polish missions. Do you need it?--Andrijko Z. (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you have a message on ICQ. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 08:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my ICQ doesn't work now. Let's speak by e-mail: [email protected]Andrijko Z. (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

On October 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Air Malawi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks! Did you know its one week to Halloween, will you be there? Victuallers (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In your evidence section at EEML, you describe P. as not telling the truth about an AE report that was filed about your editing patterns. (edits non-stop 24 hours, etc.) You did not, however, cite the particular list emails that preceded the AE report by title. I feel this point is particularly important - how are we to deal with an editor shown there to be untruthful; you may disagree. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

On October 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Air Madagascar, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 14:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

On October 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Albert Sylla, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 14:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Russiavia, hope you are doing fine. I need your assistance in editing some page titles. How do I move a page to a page with a new (corrected/edited) title if the original page is already linked to a page with that (new/edited) title using redirection? I wanted to move Taymyr Peninsula to Taimyr Peninsula (I'm a professional linguist) and I couldn't do that because there already was a page named Taimyr Peninsula and it redirected queries to Taymyr Peninsula. But I know this is not entirely impossible. What do I do then? Thank you in advance. Please, leave your comment on my talk page. Denghu (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe Russavia can't comment on this because of the restrictions placed on him. I, however, can. The "Taymyr" spelling is used because of our romanization guidelines. This is not to say that "Taimyr" is incorrect (it isn't); it's simply a spelling produced using a different romanization system (one we do not standardize on). All in all, especially when it comes to geographic names, it's preferable to use the "industry standard", which in this case happens to be BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian, on which WP:RUS is built. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:23, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying Ezhiki; Denghu and I go way back when he assisted me with some photos of different things for an article I have been working on for around 12 months now. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The "Taymyr" spelling is BGN Standard (primary English usage) for all place-names which start with that appellation. "Taimyr" in all cases is a variant, that is, not primary English usage. The BGN database is available here. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 15:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Russiavia. But there were many articles there. Which article do you want me to translate, you could put the text right on my user talk page. (Hope it's not too long.) Regards:)--Amaqqut (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop changing destination articles names!!!! The category has changed no the article names!! Stop before you cause too much problems! Zaps93 (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, misread, but it totally ruining the article titles. Zaps93 (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:LISTNAME - lists should be called "List of ...." hence why the moves are being done. The problems are 1) there are so fricking many of them 2) most of them are totally unreferenced 3) many of them are candidates to be merged back into the main article due to many of the main articles being stubby like. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If it means anything, I think these changes being made are appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

On November 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Heli Air Monaco, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 02:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Bechuanaland National Airways at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! (Note: I always leave approvals to others.) Art LaPella (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy! Ci!!!  Giano  23:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

They are singing about diving and cheating, right? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, saw you at the Numismatics wikiproject. I have some pretty serious concerns about the quality of this article; it's certainly not FA anymore in my eyes. What say you? Should it be taken to FAR? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the article and I see a lot of things unreferenced, which is grounds to taking it to FAR. But as this is not one of my areas of specialty, I think one of the numismatic project members would be better placed than I to provide an objective assessment of the state of the article. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You state that the airline is not a scheduled airline. The April 2005 accident reference clearly states that the flight was a Domestic Scheduled Passenger flight. Is is possible that the airline was a scheduled airline at one point and is not a charter airline? If so, should this be incorporated into the article somehow? Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that it was a scheduled operator, but once it had its licence revoked, it has likely only been given non-scheduled licence by the Indonesian authorities. Of course, this is only my own conjecture, but sure if the RS says it was a sked flight, I guess that could probably be incorporated into the article. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You say in the AfD that it was shut down by the authorities in 2007. Can you add this to the article with ref for same? Mjroots (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw it in Wikinews at [2]. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Added to the article, now, we just need a ref for resumption of flights. :-/ Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I will see what I can find. Luckily, I may be able to use my limited knowledge of Bahasa to find something. If not, I suppose it's no biggy. If I can find, I will add that to the article myself ;) --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 06:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that you moved your revision of the article from userspace. The humour was funny for userspace. Overall, a very nice job of expanding the article. My hometown's name doesn't quite have the innuendo as Fucking but if you ever want to give a try at expanding it into it's own article instead of a paragraph email me and i'll let you know where i'm from (i live in Calgary but it's not where i grew up). Cheers delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 21:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. You may continue to shower it upon me any time you feel like. I have some other articles I will be expanding -- yeah, I like the innuendo -- including Iron Knob, Upper Swan (around the corner from where I live), Koolyanobbing (Cool ya nob in Koolyanobbing?), and perhaps a couple of other aptly named Aussie place names -- I guess I have to edit some Aussie articles whilst here. But sure, I may give your desired article a try in the near future. Email me, and give me the name of the town I am to work on, and I can start Zoteroing required information. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 06:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, you win for the more clever innuendo. And BTW, see above, i asked you to email me when you have some time :P I was hoping to have some time to find cause to break it out from another article into its own. Also, i don't see the humour in Upper Swan or Zotero. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 06:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no humour meant with Zotero - it's a firefox extension I use to collate materials for different articles. As to the other, have you never imagined what it would be like to live "Up a swan"? Or how about In a loo? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 12:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I had not considered an Australian accent in pronouncing Upper Swan; i'm from what was once known as the wild lands of Upper Canada. Any more comment from me would be disruptive editing. Thoughts from Call Gary. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 18:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you tag my image of LANChile for deletion?? Nephsam (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the image is replaceable by a free image. As this livery was around for years, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of photos out there of the aircraft in that livery. One needs to find one and get permission to use it. As one can see from LanChile, this has been done and the other photo removed and tagged for deletion. Hope this helps. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 12:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a first and final warning for misconduct on the EEML case pages. Comments which serve no purpose other than to personally criticise another editor are uncivil and are not tolerated. Further breaches will result in a ban from all pages associated with the EEML case. Manning (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Manning. The section in question isn't just criticising Piotrus, it was pointing out that they have been deceitful for many, many months, and have continued to be so even during the operation of this case. I'll word such things more carefully in future. Thanks. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 06:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely a great hook, but let me explain why I put it is the last in the queue:

• It is a DYK (US) prime time anyway
• The last hook is traditionally quirky and this one is definitely such
• The picture there has low functionality, basically repeating a word in the hook
• To say bluntly, I am a bit conservative and try to reduce f words on the main pages - someone can get offended. Note that the promoting admin takes responsibility for the hooks on the main page
• I agree that MJ photo is not best as the lead, but the article is quite detailed and would be interesting worldwide

Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom clerk notice - You are hereby banned from participating on any page related to the ArbCom EEML case, for a duration of one week. This is a consequence of continuing to use inflammatory language, despite being specifically warned not to do so. During this time no other editor may discuss you or your actions. Manning (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I have noted the ban, and have noted that your post was an invitation to strike my characterisation of editorial actions as despicable, but please note, that the undermining of community policies and processes, and worse, the undermining of an arbitration case which had only just finished, should be despised by the community at large, and as such I do stand by that assessment. And again note, this is talking of editorial actions, not the editors themselves. Best, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 10:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Albert Axel Gibson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bechuanaland National Airways, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Botswana National Airways, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fucking, Austria, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 01:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spantax, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Transporte Aéreo Rioplatense, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 13:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to know, if Benedikt XVI. is gay or bisexual. Is there anyone who can answer these question ? 92.252.45.229 (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess the best person to ask would be this guy. But really, I don't know why you are asking me this question, he is really not my type. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 12:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to ask me a question, could you please move it to it's own section. I had not noticed your question before. Jehochman ^Talk 20:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, as I said on your talk page, I wasn't sure if it were the right place. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 12:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Quite a long time ago I have contacted you regarding letters to the press-offices of the russian government ministries in order to ask themto allow the usage of the images from their web sites. Also I was informed that you made some attempts to achieve the same result like with kremlin.ru. I would like to try to send a request to the press-office of the Russian Government. So, do you have those old copies of letters that you had sent?--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alexander, I am currently topic banned from all things Russian on English Wikipedia, and hence are unable to answer your question as it may be construed to be in violation of the topic ban. However, you know, I do have email enabled and you are most welcome to email me with any questions you may have ;) --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 12:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually Alexander, I was asked this question sometime ago by User:Mariah-Yulia, and I posted the letter in my userspace at User:Russavia/letter. Any letter you wish to send would need to be modified to go with your particular request. Perhaps we could work together to write up a basic letter which can be used by editors to contact various organisations/departments in order to request permission to use materials. I have access to fax which I don't mind using to send faxes, etc. My email is on the letter page, so feel free to contact me in regards to that ok. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to stop by and say that I really enjoyed the article. Good job! Cheers! Scapler (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Scapler, it's appreciated. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 12:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pokémon Jet, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. 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) 06:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

On Simple Wikipedia, I have nominated your Russian ambassador articles for deletion. Your input is welcome at simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/List of Ambassadors of the Soviet Union to the Bukharan People's Soviet Republic. either way (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the discussion. Perhaps if there are any Enwiki editors who would like to transwiki under CC/GFDL that could be done also. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 14:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, that "Polkab" discussion was me saying that your article on Simple Wiki was a good one and that if I had noticed it before it got deleted there I would have been happy to copy most of it (after checking the sources and all that) here to en Wiki for you. Like I said before I do appreciate good writing.radek (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, I have blocked you for one week for inserting a link to externally held material that you were well aware had been oversighted onwiki in accordance with the Oversight policy. This continuation of the battlefield mentality on your part is unacceptable. Risker (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Russavia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi Risker. In regards to the one week block which you have just placed on myself, please know that at the time of my posting the link the diff was still available on WP, it hadn't yet been oversighted, and it apparently was available for about an hour or so afterward. After I found out the diff had been oversighted, I removed the link from the talk page so that it wouldn't be available. So at the time of my posting the link, the material was still available on WP. A check of logs and oversight logs would confirm that this is true and correct. Thanks, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Frankly, I'm not buying this at all, Russavia. The fact that the page was archived offsite and that you posted the link to that site too, shows that you were clearly aware that if they weren't oversighted, that they would be within minutes. That, and the fact that you were deliberately trolling on Giano's talk page and that you are just 'stirring the pot' here shows that this block is warranted right now. And yes, I oversighted the edit - Alison ^❤ 19:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If anyone but an WP:EEML web brigadier would like to ask me questions, I am more than happy to answer them. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A little late to show you are a big brave Arb now, Risker! The time has passed.  Giano  18:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

• Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
• Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
• Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
• Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
• Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
• Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew ^talk at 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)