8 June 2024
News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023 Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024 Opinion: Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth Featured content: We didn't start the wiki Essay: No queerphobia Special report: RetractionBot is back to life! Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer Comix: The Wikipediholic Family Humour: Wikipedia rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox Concept: Palimpsestuous
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

	Toolbox	Autoblock finder Countitis facilitatis Edit summary usage stats Image usage List of blocked IPs & usernames Prefix Index Link Search Unwatched pages
	Reference	Administrators' how-to guide Administrators' reading list Current surveys Dealing with vandalism Manual of style Policies and guidelines Vandalism in progress

Archived talk: 2004 2005 2006 2007

I am sorry if I messed up your plans by my cleaning spree. Having several versions of the same image in a category at the commons makes me a little not sane though. I think that I made about 30 of them myself though before I looked to see what was already there. Your versions were almost exactly like mine, which is kind of weird because the only blank that I could find was pink and not gray. I think I started by putting a gray version at commons:Category:Maps of Russia. Out of the four different versions that existed for a while there, yours were named the best for what the commons would like, so I began the task of asking that my SVG be deleted. This is the point where I determined to go ahead and clean all of the duplicates out. The 'reward' was in reloading the category page at the commons and seeing only one well named image like it there. It would have been a greater rewarding feeling if each of the category did not also contain 4 of those pink png as well -- but it is insane to think that one human being could find all occurances of those and go through the process that I did with your SVG. I mention that now because if you are a teacher and I destroyed next semesters project, finding and taking care of the duplicate png there is an even better assignment, in my humble opinion.

There were some 'problem pages' here. I guess they are historical now (most of them) but they should have updated articles as well, shouldn't they? Here are the articles that you did not have SVG generated for or if you did, I could not find them (and actually, I could by looking at your upload history) but I am not going to. If you can image this, I am about done right now with maps of Russia, no matter how beautiful they are. Here is the problem list:

nl:Tajmyr and Taymyr Autonomous Okrug

Yakut Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic

Kamchatka_Oblast there is a Image:RussiaKamchatka2007-01.svg for it but it would be nice if they were all named similarly.

Komi-Permyak Okrug

Evenk Autonomous Okrug

Koryak Okrug

Sakha Republic

and not an image problem but a template problem I could not fix:

Kamchatka Krai

50 states and their politics sends me into a boredom I cannot endure sometimes. This tour of Russia was amazing to me with that in mind. -- carol 13:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Carol! No, you did not mess up any of my plans; in fact, I am glad I won't have to do the tedious task of updating all the maps myself! I do, however, feel a bit uneasy about the fact that the new maps were added to articles before the changes they show went into effect—this is one of those case when it is better to add the maps a little later than in advance. Anyway, what's done is done; I just want to ask you not to do it in advance when the next update comes (which will occur on March 1, 2008, when Agin-Buryat Autonomous Okrug will be merged into Chita Oblast).

Now, as for your other questions and concerns: first, I believe that it is a Commons policy to keep both svg and png versions of the same file. I don't frequent the Commons too often, and I don't have a good grasp of that project's policies and procedures, but I am sure there is a perfectly good reason behind this particular approach (svg images, after all, are still not all that widely supported, and the Commons images are intended for use not only by the Wikipedias, but for any other imaginable purposes).

Yes, it is commons policy to keep both of the images -- please don't ask me to cite where it is policy at, I remember it because it makes sense. I do not believe it is commons policy to keep four versions of the same png. The png differ in file size but not in image area size. Getting rid of the larger file sized pngs makes sense due to the format. -- Carol 08:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Second, I do not believe that adding these maps to the Commons category:Maps of Russia is a good idea. Adding just the most recent maps to that category would leave readers believing that no additional maps are available and would require recategorizing the whole set every time there is a change (such as the 3/1/8 one I mentioned above), and listing all of the maps in that cat makes having the Category:Maps of Russian federal subjects pretty much pointless. In my opinion, Category:Maps of Russia should only contain the maps of, well, Russia, and not of its constituent parts. What do you think?

Maps of Russia is an almost upperlevel directory. Those areas at the commons get full very quickly. There are 70+ SVG in the bunch that I just went through? If I had scripted the generation of the SVG that I had made (and I can now, I think) and the other two sets that I tagged for deletion -- if they had all been complete sets, that would have been more than 210 images in that one Category. My goal is not necessarilly the commons goal, but my goal is to make the category look nice. Your SVG now have a home in SVG Maps of Russia. The map that I generated for the page I was originally researching the information for (a range map for where one species of a plant can be found -- one of more than 800 species although that list is getting shorter and shorter and shorter), I don't think it belongs in this category. It is not generic enough. A set of maps of the political areas with the individual areas each highlighted in their own map is generic enough. Does that make sense to you? The more simple the expectations are of categorizing images, the easier it is for me to just work that way.

I have an observation of the making of those sets that is somewhat similar to the ease of working together that I am trying to achieve by keeping things as simple and commonsense as possible. It was one of those nice things, when I first started looking into the fact that I was duplicating the work of others, either in the history of one of the pink blank maps or somewhere -- I read that they were using pink because that was all that was the only available blank png -- was that you, btw? I felt like I was doing this great thing by making a gray SVG. So when I saw that everyone else who had either started to do the same great thing that I started had used the same colors that I did -- putting the images into the right categories should be so uniform, where it makes so much sense that everyone does it either because they know or accidentally like I did. My logic was good for picking the colors.

Here is my question about what you are doing. Do the political borders change that much? New versions can be uploaded with the same name and there is that date area in the information template which can be updated. They keep the old versions forever, you just need to click on the date in the upload history to see the old version. I laugh a little now as I write this because it is like building skyscrappers (only the direction is more like down than up) or playing tetris. It makes it so easy to actually use the information, since everything is available on the image page. So when one of the areas gets swallowed up by another, the image with that name stays there and the image page should say what date that region became a part of the other region and a wikilink to the map that swallowed it there in the information template. Then, no more uploads of that image. Carol

Anyway, I don't generally do much cleanup on Commons (mainly due to a lack of time), so as long as the maps can be found, I'm cool :)

Some seem to think that the Commons is a dumping ground. Others seem to think it is perhaps the finest collection of images that are available. I would not have liked it so much if it had not been a little of both. Carol

Finally, regarding the federal subjects you listed which do not have svg maps. Most of them, as you correctly noted, are historical (although I am not sure why you included the Sakha Republic—its map is available under Image:Russia - Sakha Republic (2008-01).svg), but you are probably right—they should have svg versions if only for presentation consistency. I'll try to put aside some time (probably well into New Year) to generate them, but if you want to do it yourself, I sure won't object :)

Hmm, I was either tired or there really is something different about the way it is in the list or names. It is somewhat of a blur now and the word is tedious and not attempted -- with that one exception. The commons photographers need to decide if they are in Europe or if they are in South America if I am following their photography correctly. I have bigger problems with the thing that got me looking at your maps in the first place. Carol 08:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, could you clarify what you mean by "template problem" in Kamchatka Krai? I don't see any apparent problems in that article.

Obviously, that is either the wrong article or I was wrong. Since I remember failing to fix it, I am going to just forget it now. I worked out what might have been happening though, if you should find an article with a broken info box. I was going to check the template to see if the area formula was using the convert template and dividing by zero. There are definitely two things that I cannot fix. Something that isn't broken and something that I can't find and don't want to look for. Carol

Again, thanks for your help with this cleanup project! It is much appreciated. Have a great New Year!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everyone learns by doing, I am convinced of this. If everyone would also clean up the spew from their beginning to learn, things and brains would be better. The dark side of my experience is that I really have a strong feeling that I am looking at the incredible mess that my web projects simple tools made. The feeling is more like the Michigander "OH MY GOD" from the nineties and not the Moon Unit Zappa "ohmygahodd" from the eighties and that there are not actual real words to express those feelings without sound, intonation and cadence to assist.

Also, I had a carrot cake break and tried to wish the existence of the Dersu Uzala DVD. Did you ever see that movie? It was one of my favorites about the Russian surveyors of Siberia. Dersu was the name of the native that they would not have survived without the help of. Carrot cake is actually part of my memory of seeing movies in that cinema. Angel Hall, University of Michigan (and wow, their wiki web page is very very 'brandie' -- my University's web page just has that phallic art problem from the 1800s.). I threw up once while attending a movie there -- it might not have been while seeing Dersu Uzala -- but I can't remember the other movies at the moment, partly because that one was so good. It seems weird that a large and respectable university like that would have problems with a manufacturer of soda. It reads like a comic book, maybe Elite and Vulnerable. They should maybe change their story in that wiki article. -- carol 08:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Hope you're having a good new year. ;) Someone, preferably you, should update Federation Council of Russia -- I know that the Evenk and Taymyr councillors should be gone, but I haven't yet found a source stating whether the Ust-Orda Buryatian councillors will remain until 31 Dec 08...? —Nightstallion 14:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Federation Council's official website, the Ust-Orda Buryatia's representative's term expires in January 2008. I'll look into this further when I return to editing in a couple of days (I'm still not done celebrating :)). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ezhiki. Perhaps you've already noticed that there is a new proposal against the Volapük Wikipedia: m:Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia. In case you agree that this is not a good proposal for vo.wp, perhaps you could help us fight against it by casting your vote? Thanks! --Smeira 00:15, 3 oct 2008

In my view, putting the context tag on it over two years ago (not that I was the one to do so) was "attempting to bring it to someone's attention." When I see an article that awful, that's gone unimproved for that long, I tend to assume that if nobody's visited the article during that time who can, and wants to, improve the article even a bit, it's not worth keeping. If it is actually a good topic that should have an article, I trust that someone will someday write a new one in a way that meets Wikipedia's standards (including proving the notability of the subject).

I probably did overreact with my sarcasm; I was quite frustrated because when I came across the article, it looked like a textbook example of an article that nobody cared at all about, and then suddenly people couldn't rescue it fast enough (by refusing to let it be deleted, but not by actually taking an initiative to improve it; by all indications, if I hadn't taken it to AFD, it would have remained in the same state for the indefinite future). I don't like seeing things that I think are messy or shoddy or stupid and being unable to fix it because of other people and what I see as poor reasoning. I fully admit this is a personal tic of mine and not the most likable or convenient.

While I suppose the proper thing to do would be to apologize, I don't really think I did anything wrong in expressing my frustration, and I deliberately restrained from calling you or any other poster any names or anything. I did insult the article; the author didn't seem too bothered by the cleanup tag on his work for the last two years, so I figured he wasn't too vulnerable. (Of course, it then turned out to be a copyvio; I AM sorry that I forgot to just check for that in the first place.) Anyway, it seems clear we have different editing philosophies that probably won't be reconciled anytime soon; all I can do, besides leaving you this insanely-overlong message to try to explain my views and actions, is assure you I don't bear any ill will over our disagreement and I hope we don't run into further conflict in the future. Propaniac (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't need your apology, honest :) But thanks for taking your time to write a response this detailed; I really appreciate it.

I stumbled upon that article purely by accident, and by no means took your attitude personally. It's just that I prefer to see a bad, horrible article no one seems to care about over a red link any day. Speedy deletion is reserved for extremely obvious cases, and prod is mainly intended for cases which are marginal cases (i.e., when it is not crystal clear whether they qualify for speedy deletion or not). All I want from you is that next time you consider going straight for AfD in cases when an article is merely in poor condition but is obviously on a topic that should have an article. AfD exposure may not help save the article, but at least it'll get one more chance to be reviewed and possibly rescued. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Could yo help me to keep this? I'd found that many of such events has own articles, whereas someone offered me to merge this with Kazan... --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason why you don't want to merge this with Kazan? It is a rather short stub, after all...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure, it will be larger as soon as investigation results will be presented. More over, there is something unclear about three missed persons. And finally there are a lot of such short articles, for example: Chechnya Spetsnaz base explosion. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the majority of the "delete" votes came from people who do not consider the event to be notable. I can see now that it is not the case, but if you could add a few more sources to the article (preferrably in English), I'll gladly oppose the nomination and explain why the notability guidelines (at least in my view) are being met.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! It's me again. I have been reviewing the stubs on flags of Russian subjects that I have created so far. Recently, I have considered on moving three of them new titles: Flag of Koryak Autonomous Okrug to Flag of Koryak Okrug, Flag of Komi-Permyak Autonomous Okrug to Flag of Komi-Permyak Okrug, and Flag of Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Okrug to Flag of Ust-Orda Buryat Okrug.

I do not know if the differences between an Autonomous Okrug and an Okrug should be taken into account on this topic. I am just seeking your opinion and approval. Feel free to take your time on this matter if you wish. American Imperialist (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Autonomous okrugs" are entities which, despite being in administrative jurisdiction of a krai or an oblast, are nevertheless constituent members of the Russian Federation (i.e., they send their representatives to the Federation Council). They are included with the rest of the federal subjects and have equal rights on the federal level.

Since 2005, some of the autonomous okrugs were merged with other federal subjects, and lost their federal subject status. Some of those autonomous okrugs were given special administrative status, and their names now omit the word "autonomous" (e.g., "Komi-Permyak Autonomous Okrug" became "Komi-Permyak Okrug" of Perm Krai). As far as the flags and coats of arms are concerned, the okrugs retain them without changes, so, technically, either title ("Flag of Komi-Permyak Autonomous Okrug" or "Flag of Komi-Permyak Okrug") is correct, although, of course, the latter is more up-to-date. If you do the moves, that would be OK, but if you leave the article as-is, that would not be much of a problem either (after all, the articles would still discuss the flags of these entities, even though the entities themselves ceased to exist in that form).

Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My motivation was to suggest that the article has a possible future if that can be addressed. It is more likely to be addressed if it is kept and discussed rather than deleted. I do not intend to address it myself but it may be that somebody with more knowledge of the subject could do so easily. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of figured that much myself. However, the difference between this article and any other poorly written article is that while the latter can be improved, this one cannot be until we first determine what exactly we are trying to describe. The last thing we want is for a person from one Kresty to add information to this stub and another person from a different Kresty to "improve" upon that under incorrect assumption that there is only one place by this name. I've seen this happen in the past, and the results are horrible and take an inane amount of time to fix. Considering how much content the article currently contains (almost none), wouldn't you agree that giving a person interested in Kresty a chance to start from a clean slate (by deleting this stub) is a far better option than risking building upon the base which is already fundamentally flawed?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying, but I think that it would be best to keep the stub, preferably as a proper article but maybe as a dab page. At least that way somebody searching for it will have a start point. A lot of people who were just browsing are probably more likely to add to an existing article than start a new one. If they add information about the wrong Kresty, I think that isn't a big problem and it probably happens a lot. Picking a specific Kresty, and therefore making it clear in the article, is probably the best way to minimise this happening. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, in order to improve this particular stub it first needs to be moved to an appropriate title (as per WP:NC:CITY#Russia). Since no one is able to do that because there is not enough information, the article is essentially useless. It's kind of like having an article about "Washington" which would include a piece about Washington, D.C., a piece about Washington state, and a piece about George Washington without making any effort to distinguish between the three. Just because it happens elsewhere does not mean we should not make an effort to correct the mistakes, even if it means deleting a few uninteresting and uninformative lines for good.

Having a dab page would be perfect, of course, and I am perfectly capable of making one which would list all four villages myself, but please see my concerns at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresty and a discussion at WT:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Proposed rewrite of "Red links" section as to why it is currently a solution non-compliant with the existing guidelines (I am yet to explore the set-index article option, though). Perhaps you'd want to comment there as well :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! After my long period of inactivity here, I'm back. I'm having a hard time to work around the Opera issues you wrote about, but I'll see what I can do, maybe this weekend. I know that the Opera guys have recently made good effort to resolve their notorious incosistencies with other major browsers, but every now and then an annoyance like the textarea selection issue pops up. Seems somewhat hard for me to fix it quickly...

The "User Scripts" list is a really useful collection. I was hoping to do a major rewrite of my scripts last year, and that's one of the reasons why I didn't include them there. Also, being "busy in real life", you know, deters me from supporting them as actively as I would like to. I'll consider adding Advisor.js, however; somebody somewhere may benefit from it. --Cameltrader (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and glad you are back! I'll be looking forward to further improvements of the script.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my assessment, the article can always be expanded out and the article states that the town has a population circa 4000 which under most circumstances should be sufficient to narrow it down, I'm sure the town has a webpage and notability is already established. As for it being misspelled: who cares? It can be moved.--The Dominator (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had this same argument over Kresty (which, incidentally, is also on AfD) just a few days ago. The article, one of a a few dozen, was created by a bot (thankfully the bot has stopped quickly enough, but the mess it left is still unbelievable), which, apparently, took the population estimates from the map legend (probably a 0-4000 group or somesuch), because that's the estimate it supplied in pretty much every single article it created. None of the three villages by the name of "Ovechkino" have populations that large (the districts in which those three villages are located, have total rural populations of 5,605, 33,385, and 11,607 people (as per the 2002 Census results) spread, correspondingly, over 285, 628, and 458 villages. The actual population, I would guess, would be around 1,000 at best, and possibly way less than that. A village this small is extremely unlikely to have its own website (I doubt that even the volost it belongs to would have a website). I am also emphasizing (for the third time!) that this place is not a town (which is easy to find); it is a village (which is not—many would not even have any Google hits, despite, obviously, being real places).

Anyway, the bottom line is that I can easily confirm and reference the fact that three villages by the name of "Ovechkino" do indeed exist in Pskov Oblast, and I can make an educated guess that whatever is currently described in Ovechkina is one of them, but there is no way whatsoever for me or you to determine (based on the article's text) which one of the three it is.

Also note that the article very well qualifies for WP:SPEEDY#A1 (insufficient context). The only reason I have not speedied it myself is because I wanted to give it one more chance (OK, two chances if you count the AfD) to be expanded by the bot owner.

Finally, as far as the misspelling goes—we would you move the article to? Since we know that there are at least three places in Russia named "Ovechkino", the name would have to be disambiguated (as per WP:NC:CITY#Russia). However, as we established above, we cannot disambiguate it properly... because there is not enough information to do so. Any comments on that?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even let the bot-operator know? I don't really have time right now but the article says it is close to the town Velikiye Luki which does have a wiki article that gives its coordinates, therefore the article is referring to the Ovechkino that is closest to those coordinates. And please just respond on my talk page, the "New Messages" feature is here for a reason and I'm not going to watch your page.--The Dominator (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I let the bot operator know; that's a prod requirement. I was leaving the messages on the bot's talk page in order to to overwhelm the person running it; I assume he is watching his own bot's page? As for the place being "close to Velikiye Luki", that's a very vague statement which really depends on the resolution of the map. To me, a place can be considered being "close to Velikiye Luki" when it is either in Velikiye Luki's administrative jurisdiction or when it is in jurisdiction of Velikoluksky District (of which Velikiye Luki is the administrative center). All three of the candidate places are pretty damn far from Velikiye Luki (the one in Ostrovsky District is the closest, but it is still clear on the opposite side of the oblast).

You seem to be operating under assumption that I make no effort to identify these bot-generated places before prodding them. Let me assure you it is not so. I did prod about a dozen of these article for the same reason, but I also corrected errors and re-wrote just as many in cases when I could pinpoint the place without any doubt. Trust me, if I saw a way to keep this stub, I wouldn't have prodded it.

Finally, as for "just responding on your talk page"—huh?.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message for the person who maintains Phoenix-bot (Phoenix-wiki) letting them know that the articles created by the bot were being deleted as the bot seemed to have gone overboard making articles. They replied on my talk page, acknowledging that having the bot create those pages was probably a bad idea, so I don't think any more pages will be created in that way. If you wanted to talk with the maintainer you could do so at their talk page. I just wanted to let you know, thanks! -- Atama^chat 00:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, but I had already been in contact with bot owner soon after the articles were first generated. Probably should have let you know; sorry about that. I am actually reviewing all of those stubs one-by-one, making corrections in cases when places can be identified unambigously and prodding the rest. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's up, where did all the Ёzhiki go? :spy: --Illythr (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, we are all still here. Just experimenting with mushrooms :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok, but do be careful with those mushrooms - not all of them are одинаково полезны... ;-)

And don't get lost in the fog, guys - lots of weirdos lurking out there. --Illythr (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, noted :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously gave a heart attack... I saw your username in red and... and... I believed there for a second that you became just another roadkill of Wikipedia bandwagon... Do do that again, you hear me! :) Renata (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, eh? :) But seriously, isn't it sad that we now assume the worst when the person does no longer seem to be around, and, sadder enough, "the worst" more often than not turns out to be the reason for leaving?

Anyway, as for me, I will never leave (you can quote me on that). I truly hope you can say the same.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did relist it. To relist an AfD means to give the AfD another five days, which would involve removing from the original AfD date page and moving it to the most recent AfD date page at the time of re-transclusion. —Kurykh 02:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; you passed :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! On the talk page, I had mentioned that the article's history should remain at Kaliningrad instead of being moved to Königsberg. However, when Matthead split the articles, he moved it to Königsberg (Prussia) and then created a new Kaliningrad (Russia) page. Feel free to fix the edit history if you are feeling ambitious. Olessi (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was no fun at all, but I think I fixed it, hopefully without fucking something else up :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. With my limited Internet access at the moment, I didn't want to start changing article histories and risk messing things up without having enough time to correct them. Olessi (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]