User talk:Kransky
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Contents |
[edit] Aeroflot destinations
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)
[edit] Diplomatic missions of Russia
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)
[edit] List of diplomatic missions
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)
[edit] Hello
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)
[edit] Former destinations at Nadi International Airport
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). --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 13:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- 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. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 14:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thank you for your wonderful message :) Made me smile. Have a weekend. Ikip (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] ITN for 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia
 |
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)
[edit] Regarding User:LatinoAussie
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)
- 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)
