Welcome!

/Archive 1

Hi, Kransky! Don't know if you speak Russian. May I ask you to pay attention to the changes you've done to the Aeroflot destinations article: it contains destinations served by Aeroflot as a flag-carrier of the Russian Federation (not of the USSR), starting from 1992. By that date, Aeroflot already dicontinued its flights to Burma/Rangoon. As well as Gander was used only for a technical stop (refuling, changing crew), not a regular destination. May I ask you to take it into consideration and not to remake it once again. Thank you and good luck! --Dimitree 22:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

• You wrote: The Aeroflot of 1992 is still the same airline of 1982. Definitely not! By the year of 1992, Aeroflot reduced twice its route-net. So what is the same in this case?
  • Moreover, if you insist in citating all the routes of Aeroflot, you should start from the year 1923 - when Aeroflot was found, - and include all its local flights to almost each city and village in USSR.
  • Moreover again: Aeroflot in 1992 is a flag-carrier of the Russian Federation, not of the Soviet Union (1982). It means, if you post a flight to Rangoon, for example, you citate the route of the aircompany belonging to a state that no more exists.
• If you need more arguments, please, see the "Discussion" section of this very page "Aeroflot destinations". Regards, --Dimitree 19:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

I'm not quite sure why I am getting this message—I've never edited that list. I remember being asked my opinion about the "old" and the "new" layouts, and my opinion was that the format proposed by Russavia was better—it makes information easier to find and more accessible, more visually appealing, more structured, easier to maintain, and overall more helpful to our readers. I also understood how changing the format in all articles would be an inconvenience to our editors, but I also pointed out that convenience of the editors takes back seat to the convenience of our readers all the time, every time, no exceptions.

If you ask my opinion once again today, you will find that it has not changed since the last time. However, since I am neither a contributor to the articles about diplomatic relations nor exactly am very interested in the subject, voicing my opinion when asked is pretty much the extent of my willingness to get involved. Working out the details and the approach to handling this list in particular or all similar lists in general is up to the members of whatever WikiProject this list is in scope. However, if you ask me, leaving a proposed list up for six months and doing nothing about soliciting the opinions about it is not the way to improve things. Assuming it has not yet been done, I'd recommend actively starting a discussion regarding how these lists are to be handled and what the better layout is. Village pump or CENT should do nicely.

I also disagree this issue has anything to do with the MoS excerpt you cited. The "styles" discussed in that passage refer first and foremost to insubstantial (although important) style issues—such as choice of a variety of English used in the article, use of spaces in headers/list bullets, choice of the style of referencing, etc. Deciding on the layout of a list, especially when the choices are so dissimilar, is of a lot more importance than those minor details, as it affects our readership to a far greater extent and thus should be discussed more thoroughly.

Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:56, March 23, 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kransky,

There are currently two main types of pages listing diplomatic missions: one listing diplomatic missions by receiving country and the other listing them by sending country. Before I had any part in these pages, the lists by receiving country were called "List of diplomatic missions in x" while those by sending country were called "Diplomatic missions of x". I saw this to be incongruous, as the format of the two types of pages was nearly identical, all of them composed primarily of a list. For this reason, I have been moving the lists of diplomatic missions by sending country to the naming format "List of diplomatic missions of x"; I am approximately half way through this endeavour. It is a common misconception that pages which contain both a list and paragraphical information are for that reason articles rather than lists; it is actually required of featured lists that they contain paragraphical information. Comparing the lists of diplomatic missions by sending country to the various featured lists, I do not see any that go beyond the amount of paragraphical information that is acceptable for lists. If sufficient paragraphical information has accumulated on a particular list, I would suggest that the best course of action would be to split it off from the list onto its own article rather than work it the other way around; the majority of these lists primarily contain list-format information, so it makes most sense to leave the lists with the page history. If you wish to discuss this further, please don't hesitate to respond on my talk page.

Neelix (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is innacurate about some of my edits. May you please give me an example? Thank you. Russian Luxembourger (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the WP:AIRPORTS archives (feel free to look it up), but to my knowledge a general consensus is that former destinations is not encyclopedic, would fail WP:LISTS anyway, unless if its entirely complete and fully referenced. In it's current form, it would fail both. I dont see why this article should be an exception to all other airport articles which do not have former destinations (as it would be incomplete, hard to maintain (for bigger airports) and would likely be poorly sourced anyway). --[[::User:Arnzy|Arnzy]] (talk · contribs) 13:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a generally accepted consensus per discussion not only at the related Wikiproject, but probably overall that "former destinations" are not really unencylcopedic unless fully referenced and marked. I'm not the only one that tends to agree with this. So, as per discussion at the related pages, I will keep removing it and will be scouting through other articles (when I got the time) that still has this. --[[::User:Arnzy|Arnzy]] (talk · contribs) 14:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the archives (feel free to look for it). Its may not be as a general guideline, but it was discussed on the talk pages in regards to former destinations. --[[::User:Arnzy|Arnzy]] (talk · contribs) 15:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your wonderful message :) Made me smile. Have a weekend. Ikip (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 June, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reason to suspect that User:LatinoAussie may be a sockpuppet of indefinitely-blocked User:TeePee-20.7. If you have any thoughts on this, you might want to go to Wikipedia:AN#Block evading sock and make them known. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right that the evidence isn't there on the surface, and I have little interest in doing the digging necessary to find the kind of evidence an admin might want - I'm actually here to edit and not to do this stuff. Unfortunately, LA has raised the stakes by going to an admin (User:Henrik) and complaining about me, asking for a preventative block. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Chinese source, exchange of notes on the establishment of Vanuatuan Consulate-General in Shanghai were signed in September, 2000. This is a list of consulates-general in Shanghai[1] (refer to No.56). It clearly indicated that the Consulate-General of Vanuatu was opened on April 25, 2007. This is a news about the opening ceremony of Vanuatuan Consulates General in Shanghai (date: July 17, 2007, venue: Renaissance Yangtze Shanghai Hotel).[2]. And this is a report about the“officials from Consulates General of Germany, Pakistan and Vanuatu (Vice-Consul General) in Shanghai Visit Yiwu” [3] [4]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybercicada (talk • contribs) 11:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. However I note:

• There is no reference that Vanuatu diplomatic mission (or even an honorary consulate) exists in Shanghai, according to the website of the Shanghai Municipal Government where all such offices are listed.
• Likewise there is no reference on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, although the sites mentions there are honorary consulates in Beijing and Hong Kong.
• An extensive internet search does not produce any evidence to suggest such a mission exists.

On the other hand, I have read the articles you have shown (except the inaccessible http://61.129.89.229/down/ws/080704f1.doc reference). The Yiwu and Shanghai government websites seem to corroborate your story, which leads us to a quandary with two pieces of contradicting information.

I would maintain that the two websites that I have listed, which are intended to list diplomatic missions rather report on particular events, would be more authorative. I am thus inclined to believe no such consulate exists at this point in time, and the article should reflect this fact.

I have copied this to the talk page of the relevant article. Kransky (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the website of Foreign Ministry of PRC may not be updated. The Vanuatuan hononary consulate in Beijing was upgraded to embassy on August 19, 2005. This document[5] is downloadable by using any download software but it takes some time. The document will show you the name of Consul-General and the address (728 Xinhua Road, Union Development Building Of China Suite 1207-1208, Shanghai), contact numbers, area of jurisdiction, etc., of the Consulate-General of Vanuatu.Cybercicada (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Cheung is on facebook. Maybe we could ask him what the status is? (http://www.facebook.jp/people/Charles-Cheung/556474400) Kransky (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my post at Talk:World War II casualties#Civilian Casualties in Asia. What is your opinion?--Woogie10w (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kransky, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Afro Australians in Australia has been removed. It was removed by Youngamerican with the following edit summary '(deprod, redirect to African Australian, unneeded fork)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Youngamerican before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Apologies on the Miss France thing, I did not notice Mandarin the first time I skimmed through and I had only searched the page for "Chinese". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, Russia's embassy in Nigeria is in Lagos, not Abuja; most other countries have their embassies in Abuja, but Russia maintains its embassy on Victoria Island in Lagos. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but we have agreed not to do that what you have just did to the List of diplomatic missions of Serbia. You are trying to do the same thing with the article on Russian diplomatic missions. Don't you see that you are going the wrong way? Instead of bringing the quality of other articles to the level of the ones in question, you are bringing down the quality of the few articles that stand out in order to level them all. Well let's than destroy all featured articles because there are more stubs? I spent a significant amount of time as well as Russavia working on those article for you to just destroy them for the sake of all articles looking like a simple directory. Try bringing up the quality of the bad ones, it's always easier to destroy than build. It reminds me of communism where those who could develop faster were stopped for the sake of everything being the same and balanced, so that the stupid and smart would have the same spot in society, the same wage, the same clothes. What you should concentrate on doing is developing other article and not reverting the developed article to the state in which the majority of articles is in in order for them to look similar. If we were doing that Wikipedia would get nowhere, because we would revert any development on articles on the US president because hey it can't be different to the article on Fijian president. Such retrograde editing is not welcome and on top of that we had an agreement not do it, so why are you now violating the consensus in which you also took part?--Avala (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I thought we were going to do that after all the other lists were ready and set for tidying for the featured list nomination. I don't think it's an appropriate time to do it now in the middle of the work when neither proposal (although my position is that there should be no leveling therefore no voting for which design should be used in all articles). It doesn't make sense to discuss the design now when the quality of the articles, both technical and content wise, is at different levels, (I would say that the list on Serbia is more advanced at this point) that the last problem we should be dealing with here is it's design. We should concentrate on bringing up the quality of other articles or all articles if you want, don't you think? As for the listing of ambassadors I think I chewed it over so many times "The article on missions is just listing heads of missions while the main article on ambassadors concentrates on them in detail explaining their status as well as their photos etc." I thought that you accepted my plea to let me work on the article on missions of Serbia to try to promote it to the level of a featured list and if it gets that status it will be a great thing for Wikipedia and perhaps or perhaps not the guideline for others as it is up to them, if it fails miserably it should be discussed on how to implement some other model. I think it's better to do it this way then experiment with all the articles at the same time in the same direction anyway.--Avala (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No such agreement was made. I thought it was clear that we could not agree, and so the next step would be to get the view of other contributors. You are welcome to write whatever argument you want defending your new proposal on the talk page. Otherwise, please tell me why you don't think the matter should be settled this way. Kransky (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why you removed the wikitable from the Turkish DM list, but not from the Serbian list? I waited for a month, but there is still no consensus for removing wikitables from these lists. The Serbian and Turkish lists are featured lists when compared with others. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for Wikitables either.

I don't think Wikitables are suitable (especially when we have pictures). But my major concern is that the people advocating for wikitables are only interested in particular countries. I am sure they bring good ideas and energy to articles they are interested in, but who is going to make the updates to all the other articles? There should only be one style used.

Why not adopt your preferred style in an article on Turkish ambassadors? Kransky (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is no consensus for both styles. So we can use both of them. It isn't against any consensus or policy.

There is no obligation to use same style in every DMBC list, like there are several different sections in country articles. Some have sports, tourism, cuisine, etc. sections, but others list these topics under a single section. And Wikipedia community choses one of these styles featured.

I also wonder why you don't remove the wikitable from the Serbian DM list? I'll readd the wikitable to the Turkish DM list. Please don't revert it. Because your allegation can't be justified. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 15:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my input on the JNB talk pages, as well as Wikipedia guidance on image sizes. As explained, there really is no justification for the images to be so large. Regards the PRG airport page, the images were not removed, they were simply moved to ensure a good layout, and the extremely large destination images were reverted to thumb-size. And a spelling error was fixed (which you reverted without noticing). Thanks. Jasepl (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you are reading me carefuly you see i now understanding noone likes fixing me in mistaking my edits. i am understanding and am acepting this. if you look you are see i am no more almost not editing this article because of this one. but stil i am interesting in this article because it is about everything. so if i am thinking i can help by asking some questions.

i am very much thinking that you are maybe the best editer i am seing because i can seeing that you are THINKING. many of them are just like childs and put in what they are remember because it was for them interesting. I see this here: [6] and [7] and most lately here: [8]. you understand this aritcle has problem and understanding it needs big thinking to fix. i am suporting you very much.

what you need you must find somehowe to pruve what should be and not be in aritcle. but it must be rules not things that hapened. so with rules everbody is knowing if it is okay to be ading this one things or not. i dont care if romania is in aritcle or is not if someone can say look this is rule why vedio games are in there but first woman president is not. what is most important? i am not saying i know i am saying noone is knowing this right now.

i maybe am too going to add more to the aritcle but i am promiseing to work morer on my grammar. i can do beter when i take much time to be writeing my sentences and will try not to add anything needs to be fixed by other editers. i am happy always to lisen to what you are writeing me. thank you. 70.153.208.164 (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to contribute, but I stress you should understand how this Wikipedia system works. We need more diverse content, and I think you can help this way. Kransky (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kransky! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 15 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Erika Yamasaki - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kransky - I assume you are the creator of this file? [9] If so, could you give your references and explain when this was the case? I am especially surprised to see a direct connection to London. Never heard of it. Ingolfson (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please return to talk page discussion on 2000s and be helping to decided what is important to put in there. it is not good now at all. 70.153.230.93 (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed that you've put a bit of effort in the article on German-Japanese relations. Over the past weeks I majorly expanded it and really need people to go scan my contributions. I want to set a high quality standard since I'd love to have it featured some day ;) Thanks in advance! --Gliese876 (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really appreciate your participation on its nomination for a Good Article - Talk:German–Japanese_relations :) --Gliese876 (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at Talk:German–Japanese relations, the nomination template is right at the top ;) --Gliese876 (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]