User talk:KNewman

Hi. Rather than having an article with no text other than "See (some other article)", redirect to that article. Just put "#REDIRECT (name of other article in brackets)". See Wikipedia:Redirect for more info. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 21:28, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Umbrella repairer

Hi - I deleted this article because it said almost nothing, except that an umbrella repairer repairs umbrellas, which is obvious - just a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. And it really isn't a topic for an encyclopedia article, is it? Unless there is something significant about this title, as compared to any other kind of repairman, we don't need an article.

If, perhaps, there was some famous umbrella repairman in history or fiction, or if umbrella repairing was involving in a big legal fight over work rules, or something like that - then it could use an article! - DavidWBrooks 14:37, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Muscovite princes

Was it you who compiled the list of the Muscovite princes? Where? (please always provide links to pages in question). Anyway... No I am not. Fell free to fix what is to be fixed. For now, I'd suggest to remove the word "muscovite", and gradually comment each name with proper princedoms (in some cases they will be miltiple, I guess). I am not a historian, BTW, so my advice in history is mostly useless to seek. Mikkalai 02:03, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Iskra/Pravda

Привет Kirill,

please see my recent comments posted on the Talk:Pravda, maybe you could refactor them into smth useful either in the Pravda or in the Iskra articles.

Kind regards, BACbKA 00:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Grozny as article of the week

Actually, the title "article of the week" is misleading. The article for the week, once chosen, is a stub that people work on for the week and attempt to bring up to featured standard. See Wikipedia:Article of the week and Wikipedia talk:Article of the week (where a discussion is ongoing about renaming the project. The candidates specifically must be stubs or short articles!!! However, usually the subject must be deserving of a good article, as the idea is to fix gaps or failures of Wikipedia. For example, the past week has seen Renaissance go from a short pathetic article to a detailed in-depth one. zoney ███ talk 19:25, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article of the Week

Hi there - as Zoney has pointed out above, the title of Article of the Week is quite misleading (and there is currently a vote to get it changed - see the talk page). AotW is not a stamp of approval: the idea is to choose a non-existent or stub page and to try to create a featured-standard article in one week from widespread cooperative editing. I'm not sure if that is what you intended with Soviet Red Banner Northern Fleet as it looks quite large already - if you want lots of people to help you to finish the article then that is what Article of the Week is for. Hope his helps. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:33, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First of all, KNewman, let me thank you for all the hard work you've been putting in for Wikipedia! The Soviet Red Banner Northern Fleet article that you wrote looks like a very solid addition to the Wikipedia. Like others have said, though, the Article of the Week is for the Wiki community to jointly grow a stub into a lengthy article. What you're looking for, I think, is Wikipedia:Peer review. Please feel free to add the "Soviet Red Banner Northern Fleet" article to that page; I (and other Wikipedians, no doubt) would be glad to review and edit it. • Benc • 02:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Indeed - apologies if my first message above comes across as a little 'crisp' - I was just concerned that AotW was probably not the place you were looking for! If you can find something that is not as well covered as the Soviet Red Banner Northern Fleet (thanks to your work) then please add it to WP:AOTW. -- ALoan (Talk) 02:15, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Russian sailing navy

Hi, do you have any sources for earlier Russian naval history? I've seen a few references to a substantial fleet (for instance the Battle of Copenhagen (1801) was timed so that the Russians were still iced in), and the cryptic reference to John Paul Jones as Russian admiral, so I suspect there's a lot more story out there. Stan 05:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Translation of Кедр

Hi K - can I draw your attention to the List of false friends to point out that Russian Кедр does not refer to cedar (Cedrus, not found in Russia), but (depending on the exact location) to either Siberian Pine (Pinus sibirica, central Siberia), Korean Pine (Pinus koraiensis, far southeast Russia) or Siberian Dwarf Pine (Pinus pumila, east Siberia) - thanks, MPF 09:42, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not posting chick in Aurora article. Yesterday I uploaded correct Aurora pic (as in here). Now Image:Aurora.jpg seem OK to me - maybe try to refresh browser cache?... Pibwl 17:45, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Normanist theory

Thank you, I really appreciate you kind words. Yes, I believe I am the only writer of the Normanist theory and I have written most of the rest too. My wife is Russian and has a mother who is a professor of history at the Academy of Science in Moscow. I just asked her about what you wrote, and she says that she has heard about it. I'll try to see what I can find about this in English. I have the habit of always double checking information (no offense) :).--Wiglaf 06:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi KNewman. Yes, I have heard about the mistranslation (sine hus, etc.). The theory makes sense, but I don't think it contradicts the Normanist theory. It rather supports by explaining the odd names Sineus and Truvor.

In fact, you're very welcome to add the information about the German gentlemen under The Antinormanist theories in the same article.--Wiglaf 07:46, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Double redirects

Hi, I see, you are doing a huge job entering all knyazes. Please keep your eye at double redirects. Vsevolod the Big Nest had quite a few. Mikkalai 22:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rulers of Kievan Rus'

Hi! I've actually been watching the article ever since I asked that, so I see a lot of improvements have been made. Nice work, thanks! Adam Bishop 22:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sergei Ivanov

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for your work on Sergei Ivanov. Nice job! Wmahan . 04:43, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

I must second the thanks, you have a way of helping to make an article both readable and informative. --Aika 20:49, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty

Sorry, I don't know where the copper came from. No, I didn't write the article. I added a few bits to it here and there. If you click on the "history" tab you'll see that like many Wikipedia articles this is the product of many, many contributors. The best place for you to ask this question would be on the Talk page for the article, i.e. Talk:Statue of Liberty

Saw your question pop up on Dpbsmith's talk page. I can't find an authoritative source, but several non-authoritative sources say the copper came from the Visnes Copper Mine on the Norwegian island of Karmøy. I'd add it to the article if it seemed to be more than internet hearsay. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:33, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: User talk:212.76.39.2

Howdy. Don't worry, I'm not creating a separate article under a different name. There is a special mechanism (Wikipedia:Redirect) allowing us to refer by different names to articles as needed by the context. This way we don't end up with dozens of articles that would gradually fall out of sync (Though there still remains a problem where to put the main article cf. Talk:Kyiv).

By the way, I really appreciate it that You respect the fact that nations whose history is intermingled with Russia might not agree with the official Russian verison of those events.

Thanks for fixing the stub

I don't feel possessive about it. And thanks for leaving me a note. Take care. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 18:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Newsletter

Hi, KNewman. I'm a japanese Wikipedian. Looking your name on Translators' list on meta, I come here to ask your help. would you like to join to translation of Quarto, the Wikimedia Foudnation Newsletter? I took part in Japanese edition, and found it was helpful for the community to know about both our activities in entire and activities in each local projects. Now there is no Russina translation and I think Russian Wikipedians will be happy the version in their owh language - and I will be happy if I will be able to read Russian news in the next edition. Or even your glance at our work, Wikimedia:Wikimedia Quarto/1/Ja-1, will be my honor. --Aphaea 07:52, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you have no time enough translate whole stuff, would you like to help us with your translation of m:Wikimedia Quarto/Annc? It is five lines' annoucement for the newsletter. Thanks. --Aphaea 14:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

mmm, exciting. (-:

Culture of Greece

Culture of Greece is this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

U.S. embargo against Cuba

You voted for U.S. embargo against Cuba, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Sikorsky Ilya Muromets

Thanks for covering this long-overlooked and extremely important aircraft! --Rlandmann 22:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The link to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation was a mistake on my part - I forgot that the Sikorsky redirects to the American company and did not cover Igor Sikorsky's work in Russia. I'll fix these! --Rlandmann 21:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Partition of India

You voted for Partition of India, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Left communism/Left Opposition

They're not the same but that might not have stopped some from using the terms interchangably. Generally, left communists are "anarcho-communists" such as the Bordigaists. Lenin, though, wrote Left-wing Communism aimed, I believe, at Bukharin who was in the early days of the revolution on the far left of the party and opposed the Brest-Litovsk Treaty (which Trotsky negotiated). I suppose you can only really tell by the context, if writings refer to Trotsky as a left communist then the writer is using left opposition and left communism interchangably. Usually they refer to different phenomena. AndyL 20:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sikorsky Alexander Nevsky

Hi KNewman - I've been following up this aircraft, trying to find out more - but none of my references contains any information on it. I did stumble across a website in Russian (which I can't find again now!) with some information, but it didn't tell me anything more than your article did. I'm wondering whether this was perhaps just a variant of the Ilya Murometz? Or perhaps one specific Ilya Murometz given a new name? If you can direct me to any references, I would be very grateful! (I don't know much Russian, but I read the Cyrillic alphabet quickly enough to recognise names and technical terms, and use machine translations to fill in the blanks!) --Rlandmann 03:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Redirect you created at "Krasin (icebreaker)"

Hi, you created a redirect from Krasin (icebreaker) to Krasin, but there is currently no article at Krasin. (As far as I can tell, there was never an article at that name.) Wikipedia policy is to get rid of redirects to non-existent pages, and someone listed Krasin (icebreaker) on WP:RfD If you want the redirect to stay, you will need to create something at Krasin (even a stub will do), or else the redirect will go away. If you do create the target, you don't have to do anything on WP:RfD (we'll eventually notice the target is there), but if you do, just delete the entry for Krasin (icebreaker). Thanks! Noel (talk) 21:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

Collaboration of the Week

Your vote for African art has helped bring about the article's selection as this week's Collaboration of the week. Please join in trying to make the article a feature.

Meetup

Your name is on the list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC for December 12. In case you forgot to check the page, the venue and time have been both been set. We are planning on meeting at the Moonstruck Diner at 1:30pm. Just wanted to let you know. -- – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 23:07, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

My refactoring of your comments

I'm not sure if you still want it, but here is the text before I refactored it. You are welcome to edit it as you think is suitable. this is a direct link to edit the current version. It just looked bad to me, and maybe I didn't do a good job of editing out the 'bad parts'. I apologise if you think it wasn't a suitable edit. Thanks for the polite note, though, and it's nice to meet you. I hope you do continue to nominate collaboration of the week articles. Your suggestion was a good one Pedant 02:12, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Nominated December 7 2004; needs 5 votes by December 14 2004

Support:

KNewman 04:24, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

There is no article on what some U.S. historians consider a black page of American history - the Great Sedition Trial of 1944. The article on the American comic book, however, is too long to read. What a shame... KNewman 04:24, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
- If it is so very important to you, start the damn article. Expect nothing but brickbats for, inter alia, criticising others for putting their effort into articles they regard as important, rather than effort into those you regard as important whilst you are apparantly too lazy to put any effort into the article you regard as important. --Tagishsimon (talk)
  - There's no need to offend me personally, Tagishsimon. Sorry for vaguely expressing my point of view on the American comic book article. I nominated this article only because I felt this was an important historic event that needed our attention the sooner the better. Secondly, I know very little about this trial and decided not to start a tiny stub and let someone knowledgeable work on it. Considering the reaction and all, this is gonna be my last COTW nomination. KNewman 16:17, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  - Tagishsimon, I suggest me and you to look up the word "collaboration". I never suspected that brickbats are part of it. Probably we need to put the Collaboration article on COTW in the first place.Mikkalai 21:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - You never suspected, huh? That's probably just a failure of your imagination. Look up robust criticism whilst you're about it. Meanwhile, if you'll forgive me, I'll get on with the substantive work of starting the Great Sedition Trial article. --Tagishsimon (talk)
While it is good that the topic was brought to an attention, IMO it is hardly broad enough to require crowded editing. Two-three dedicated persons will do. Mikkalai 23:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think it would make more sense to change the name of the article to Smith Act Trials and expand the article so that it also discusses the 1941 trial of SWP leaders and the 1949-1951 trial of Communist Party leaders. AndyL 01:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - I'm happy to see that change made. --Tagishsimon (talk)-

Redirecting

So you know, to redirect to a page, you need to say #REDIRECT , a space, then the link. It took me a while to remember how to redirect, too. -- user:zanimum

Mikhail Alekseev

Hello. For some months now, Mikhail Alekseev has been listed as a possible copyvio from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and current paper edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. See the first listing under Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Old for the brief discussion. Could you verify that this edit does not violate either of those copyrights? Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 09:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

COTW

Congratulations, First Indochina War has been voted this week's Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week. Please edit it to help raise it to featured article status.

COTW

Congratulations, First Indochina War has been voted this week's Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week. Please edit it to help raise it to featured article status.