User talk:Russavia

Email me.

Nord Stream

You're right, the way I had written that was not very NPOV. Thanks for fixing that. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-06-14 17:30

???

I was astonished that an admin reverted your tagging a cat at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Australia%E2%80%93Russia_relations with the comment that russia project doesnt tag cats? That is so weird - what makes that project different from the rest of wikipedia that thy dont want to know what they have? I do hope you can enlighten me - it is so odd I wonder what rationale there is for such an illogical process ? SatuSuro 14:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually (and pardon me for intervening, since I suspect this is going to end up on my talk page one way or the other anyway), I am untagging the cats and the templates precisely because I do want to know what we have. It is the cats and the templates which completely screw up the unassessed counts in these stats. This, of course, is due to the fact that "Categories" and "Templates" are not included in the stats as separate lines, but while it would be trivial to add them, I still don't see what value it would bring. Suppose we find out that we have, say, 500 cats and 200 templates. So what? Is there some particular utility to this knowledge that I'm missing? If so, I'd love to hear what it is (and will, of course, stop untagging until this is resolved). If not, this tagging simply creates an extra load on the servers without serving any useful purpose. Feel free to move this thread to WP:RUSSIA's noticeboard, by the way, as I feel we could use some extra input. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah dont bother - youve explained - thats fine and thanks for taking the trouble to explain - we have just had a bot at the australian project -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TinucherianBot - and I quite misguidedly (from your explanation I am sorry I am I cannot really answer the technicalities as to whether there is benefit in such a bot job) - I just used to manually tag australian cats for a while -

So apologies russavia for clogging your talk. and ezhiki - I'll let you know if anybody at the australian project ever explains the benefit of the bot etc. SatuSuro 15:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings on my side at all. I am still very interested to hear Russavia's side of the story—it seems it was him who's been tagging many of the cats I later untagged (without realizing that a human person tagged them in the first place), so I imagine he must have a reason of his own. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've only done them as I presumed it was the norm within the project. Although I only ever tag an occasional category, as I think there are better things to be doing that pasting tags all over the place, and often I just forget. I will tag articles if and when I find them, but tend not to bother doing categories and templates. --Россавиа ^Диалог 11:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for bringing all of this up here - it is probably a project noticeboard issue rather than personal talk item - as for the practical use of them - heheheh you're welcome to you opinion SatuSuro 11:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, would you mind if I continue to untag the cats and the templates then? My main concern is that their inclusion screws up the stats for unassessed articles. I don't think WP:RUSSIA has a norm as far as this issue goes, but considering the above it seems like a good idea to establish such a norm now, and seeing no use for cat/template stats, I suggest to never tag said cats/templates. Please let me know if you have any objections. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not all, I see the point in not tagging categories and templates. If I run across them in future, I'll try to remember to remove them also. --Россавиа ^Диалог 15:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please neverdo that in the New Zealand, Australian or Indonesian projects for any reason - cheers SatuSuro 15:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, only talking about WP:RUSSIA cats/temps here. --Россавиа ^Диалог 15:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading this. It's about tagging the pages in non-article namespace. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Layout choice

Without doubt, I like the second version better (the one using tables). The downside to using tables is that the page loads much slower on slow connections, but I think the benefit of being able to sort the table outweighs that downside in spades. It also helps provide links to the individual embassies more neatly than a list-only approach would allow: with lists the pages are extremely long with a lot of unused white space. Pictures of individual embassies are located in the corresponding rows in the table; with lists, one would have to hunt them down on the right side, which is not very easy considering the article's length. Does that help you any?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not forgotten, just am, I guess, procrastinating (sorry!). Is there any urgency to this, by the way, or can I take my time? If there is, I will, of course, move this to the top of my list. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the overall importance of having a tabulated list over having a plain vanilla bulleted lists, I have to say that it is not very high for this type of content (i.e., which is of mid to low importance on the assessment scale). However, since the topic has a vast potential for growth and currently receives a fair amount of editors' attention (even if the only active contributor is you), in my opinion, it means that the styling choice should depend on preferences of the editors who work on that content, providing that those preferences do not conflict with usability issues and break no MOS styling guidelines. Having someone walk-in on your work and start telling that it is, as far as formatting it goes, no good, is at best rude and at worst disruptive and unproductive. I diligently tried to follow the discussions and the RfC, and although the whole picture is still not very whole in my head, I am getting an impression that your formatting choice is being opposed simply because someone clearly does not like it (for reasons I am still having trouble to understand). A bulleted list for a topic like this is a good solution in the beginning, when the list is incomplete and only the most important points need to be addressed from the article creation point of view. As the contents grow, however, a bulleted list becomes not only unwieldy from the workflow organization point of view, but also confusing to readers, which means other solutions need to be sought. Laying out the contents in a table is often such a solution, as it allows for presenting the contents in a more compact and organized manner.

Creating a separate ambassadors of Russia article is probably inevitable in the long run, but at this point, considering the sheer number of red links, it seems to merely mirror a subset of data from the "diplomatic missions of Russia" article and serves no useful purpose (i.e., it provides no additional value).

All in all, process-wise, your work seems to be very similar to what I do (developing the articles about the administrative divisions of Russia; a process in which creation of lists plays an important role), so I very well understand (and, unfortunately, know from experience) how important it is to have a development process that works out for major contributors, even though it may occasionally come in conflict with formatting preferences of editors whose only interest (and sometimes ability) is in upholding their petty styling choices. You can count on my wholehearted support in this matter. As long as your formatting choices are in line with MOS (which they are), there should be no question in whose preferences are to be adopted (major contributors', duh!). My advice in dealing with formatting sticklers is to take a good look at WP:WIAFL and try to bring your styling choices in line with that guideline's recommendations (I assume you will want to nominate your work for FL once it is complete?). Item #4 of the guidelines, for example, explicitly recommends using table sort facilities, which alone should give you plenty of leverage. Same goes for visual appeal (#7)—once the red links are taken care of, the choice between an ugly long bulleted list and a neat table really becomes a no-brainer. Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I supplied my comments on that talk page and will keep watching it, so, I guess, I am now officially involved :) Please let me know if this spills over to somewhere else.

On an ironic note, having read Kransky's reasons and having applied them to my own Wikipedia work, it seems that I should have never even started to develop the administrative and municipal divisions of Adygea list (which is now featured), because, obviously, it is out of line with the formatting of every other list in the series (example 1, example 2). Now someone has to start working on 80+ other lists, oh noes, what a disaster! Perhaps we should simply revert the Adygea's list to this wonderfully consistent state, eh? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. I'll certainly keep an eye on the discussion. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Format

Yep something like that just maybe a little bit simpler so that it wouldn't contain so many red links.--Avala (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So long as it is properly formatted and referenced, lists with red links are ok, and actually encouraged as it will encourage article development amongst editors. Just know up front, that any push to move away from what I believe is the boring current list format of most article is going to hit resistance with some editors. I was considering a push for consensus at WP:FOR, whilst at the same time alerting country wikiprojects so that their input in what is important for article development in their respective projects could also weigh in and have a true consensus. Also, all talk should take place at WP:FOR, not on category pages as has been happening in the past. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, you might want to rethink your strategy of "alerting country wikiprojects so that their input in what is important for article development in their respective projects could also weigh in and have a true consensus."

The parent project of the diplomatic mission articles is WikiProject International relations, and not the WikiProject of any particular country. We want consistency across all these articles, and not something different for Bhutan, something different for Russia etc.

Why does this matter? Consistency not only makes the articles look professional, but a "one rule fits all" prevents bias emerging. Kransky (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you would refer to Diplomatic missions in Russia, you will notice a few things. It is called Diplomatic missions in Russia. It is in a category, Russia-related lists, the content is in relation to Russia and other parts of the world, and the talk page specifically states that it is part of WP:'''RUSSIA'''. Articles are not the domain of any one project, and actually are not the domain of any project, they belong to the community at large, and the community at large is entitled to have its input. The way you are approaching this is that only WP:FOR members will edit these articles, but the fact is anyone can edit these articles, and different projects may have differing needs for development of articles within their scope that need to be taken into account. I will say one thing though, the current setup for the majority of the lists are not professional and don't look any good. As an uninvolved editor said, compare Diplomatic missions in Russia to List of diplomatic missions in India, and the Indian list may as well not even exist; it doesn't allow for any type of downline article development. I've asked some Russia project members for their opinion to see what is important for that wikiproject in terms of article development and hope to have their opinion before too long. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me try another tack to see if this convinces you. Suppose six months down the track somebody with a facination for all things Paraguayan decides to rewrite the Diplomatic Missions of Paraguay article. He gets his Project Italy buddies to support his ideas, and eventually their design becomes entrenched. We now have three different designs, breaking the overriding Wikipedia principle of consistency. Then a few months later the Paraguyan group start modifying Diplomatic Missions of Russia to make it fit with their syle, and you and they are going to be engaging in this debate again. Or maybe a fourth group comes over and starts inventing a new standard that could provoke a fifth group (say, removing Israeli embassies, or giving Northern Cypriot missions inappropriate status). I will agree with you that the Diplomatic Missions by receiving countries is inconsistent, and would think that these articles are in more dire need of standardisation. Kransky (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For creating a lot of useful articles! -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Il-86

Media:Il-86Hello! Thank you for your corrections regarding the manufacturers.

In fact, I recall that the Il-86 was especially intended for joint production with Poland. This was an exercise to boost what was sometimes called the "iron triangle" (GDR/Czechoslovakia/Poland) between the USSR and the West. Another point is that WSK-Mielec was no subcontractor in the sense of a fully competent factory which was waiting to do the job. It had no experience of anything bigger than a jet trainer and, to part-make a wide-body, had to have a huge amount of technology transferred to it by the Russians (titanium, honeycomb structures, you-name-it) to cope with the task it was set. It was also intended to make the wing. It never did make the wing, most likely due to the Polish troubles of the 1980s. Trouble is, I cannot recall where I read (or more likely heard) this (probably at Flight, where I worked as a stringer) and so cannot bring any references to bear. So it stays as it is after your correction. If I strike lucky and find them (and if they are able to be published!), I shall bring them out into the open.

Can I ask you a favour? Please let me know what I can do in your opinion to get the article a higher rating than C. Please don't spend ages on it but let me have a general opinion of where it needs tweaking. I have asked Trevor MacInnis but he is clearly busy, so no joy there.

Much obliged in advance.Peter Skipp (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

List of diplomatic missions in Hanoi

I see that the phonebook stuff is gone, so this article does make a lot more sense to me now. I'll go ahead and change to keep. Aaronw (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about CFD

I've left you a question regarding one of your recent category nominations. See here. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Embassy of Russia in Luxembourg

I know the Russian Embassy fairly well as I pass it about once every two weeks when I go to visit my sister. I have no clue where the Consulate is and will have to look it up on a map. In principle I can take the pictures (I've never actually approached the Embassy compound (unlike some other embassies I've never had a reason to protest in front of it), so I don't know what kind of pictures I can take). But I won't have an opportunity in the coming weeks. If you are in a hurry I can ask someone from Luxembourgish language Wikipedia.--Caranorn (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok

Shure, Ill try to find it on the internet. When I do, can you please tell me how to download it, Im new. Thank you very muchRussian Luxembourger (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Russian Luxembourger

Consulate General in Montreal.

Hi There Russavia. I took a picture of the Russian Consulate General in Montreal today. I posted it on Wikimedia Commons. I also share your passion for aviation. Keep soaring above the clouds! fr:Utilisateur:Phil13 70.83.104.216 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

DMBC

Should we take this dispute to third opinion or RfC? Kransky (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Haitian creole wikipedia

Hi Russavia,

You seem to not have merged your accounts or created one on our wikipedia (ht:Paj prensipal) You let us this message :

Please leave any messages for me on my talk page at the English Wikipedia here.

on a wrong page (i tried to redirect it but the right page didn't exist neither ...:-( )

Do tell me what you'd like to do. You can see the page there : http://ht.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Diskisyon_Itilizat%C3%A8:Russavia&redirect=no

---

ht:iitlizatè:masterches —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterches (talk • contribs) 22:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi Russavia, Welcome in id.wiki, ms.wiki, and jv.wiki! Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome in su.wiki too! Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

well done

On 19 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Consulate-General of France in Saint Petersburg, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Soviet cinema

Hi. Just to let you know that Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force has been started. You may which to join or link it somehow with WikiProject Russia. If you know anybody interested potentially, please let them know. Thanks The Bald One ^{White cat} 10:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Australia–Zimbabwe relations

Hello, I'd like to enquire as to why you renamed Australian-Zimbabwean relations to Australia–Zimbabwe relations recently. This isn't an ownership thing, but I was unable to find any distinct policy on the naming of such articles, you did not leave an edit summary or a note on the talk page, and a quick look through some of the bilateral relations categories indicates that there is a mix of the two naming styles (along with a handful of special cases) with neither being obviously preferred to date.

If there has been a recent consensus to adopt this naming style for these articles, I'd be in your debt if you could point me towards it so that I don't make any errors if I create more such articles in the future. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

ITN

On 25 August, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 6895, which you created or 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.

--Spencer^T♦C 23:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines#Opening statements

Hello. I'm Ryan, the mediator of the above request for mediation. Would it be possible for you to pop over to the link above so we can start the mediation properly? Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages

Please note that article talk pages are intended for discussions of how to improve the article. Editor speculation on what countries may or may not do is not going to improve the article and is therefore indeed off topic. And other editors are in fact entitled to remove off topic discussions. The header of the page you are referring to in fact says it. I am personally not going to remove discussion but this doesn't excuse editors from rambling on in talk pages Nil Einne (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Frankly I'm disappointed that an experienced editor such as yourself thinks it's okay to speculate in talk pages. I know it happens and I have no real problem with editors that do it occasionally (I do it myself sometimes) but there's a difference between doing it on occasion and saying it is okay Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

IRC and EP

Dear Russavia; I don't think that this is a big deal. :) IRC is the ICAO code and EP the IATA code for Iran Aseman Airlines. IRC6895 and EP6895 are both correct. I give an example: on http://ikia.ir/ we have a "schadule flightse" ( :D ) and all codes there are ICAO style, like "IRA721" to Frankfurt am Main. And we have the flight schedule of FRA (PDF), with all flight codes in IATA style, including "IR721"; but you see, it is the same. Aseman Airlines itself uses the IATA style in its flight schedule (PDF); don't take the trouble to find "EP6895" in it; unfortunately you will find only "EP6889" and "EP6890" between Mashhad (MHD) and Bishkek (FRU). Best regards. Raamin (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

{{SouthOssetia-stub}} and {{Abkhazia-stub}}

Hi - two or more stub types which you created have been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub types (templates or categories), which were not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, do not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding these stub types, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first!

It is worth noting that stub templates are virtually never created for independentist regions until such time that they are recognised internationally by a significant number of countries, as these stub types tend to become the targets of potential edit-warring (something which has far more far-reaching effects on templates than it has on articles). Thus, for example, there is no stub type for Turkish North Cyprus, since it is only recognised by one country. If Abkhazia and South Ossetia become recognised by more than just one country, then feel free to propose the creation of stub types for them. Until then, it is generally accepted practice with stub sorting for them not to have separate stub types. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is WP:BIAS. As commented already, it ignores long historical, cultural and linguistic differences with Georgia, and the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, for the most part do not regard themselves as Georgian, and we apparently take into account self-identification here on WP. Discussion will be continued at the SFD. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Russia

I can fix that, just tell me what links should be included. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I am sorry for being a bit brash at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia in our earlier discussion. You were right, the changes made by Be Black Hole Sun (talk · contribs) were done in good faith from the outset and instead of complaining I should have just gone and merged the older stuff that was removed with the new version. Cirt (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

intl recognition of

Hi, I don't know if you have noticed but the map is removed by a user who actually tried destroying it on commons, something that I would refer to as chain vandalism as he then here claimed how image is bad and should be removed. I asked him a number of questions here (at the lower part of that section)) about the issues he might have with the map but the furthest he went is too blab about western POV hitting Wikipedia. He doesn't want to respond to those questions, claims them to be answered. I asked for admins to comment on noticeboard yesterday and they said his reasons were bogus and that there is nothing wrong with the map. May you please re-put the map which corresponds to the article very well (you can check the legend and every statement and you'll see). Thanks, --Avala (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Russian Embassy in Tajikistan

Hey Russavia, Here is a picture of the Russian Embassy in Tajikistan. Since you are working on the embassy's of Russia project, I thought you must be interested on this.

Cheers --Kaaveh (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Category:Kosovo stubs

Hi Russavia - I have reverted and re-protected Category:Kosovo stubs. This category was the subject of severe edit-warring for quite some time, and the only solution that editors could agree on was for it to be part of a European parent. As such, it has deliberately been left separate from Category:Serbia stubs, feeding directly into Category:Europe stubs.

Edit warring is bad on articles, but it is many times worse on template/category combinations, since any changes simultaneously affect many articles, putting unnecessary strain on Wikipedia's servers (this is one reason why high-use templates are automatically protected). I would advise you to read some of the history of the category and template talk pages for Kosovo-related stub templates, and also some of the discussions on them on the various WP:WSS talk pages, before considering any further changes to these stub types. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you be able to point me to the discussion where it was decided that editors agreed it should only stay as part of a European parent? Because I can't for one second believe that Serbian editors would ever have agreed to such a thing. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

CIS - Saakashvili

Whatever Georgia's current status is in CIS, please make sure that your edits are not motivated by political hatreds. I am saying that because I have not mentioned Saakashvili at all but you suddenly made him part of the justification of reverting the edit. Please try not to do that that again and keep your opinionated edits to yourself. I never mentioned Medvedev when reverting anyone.--Satt 2 (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My edits never are, nor have been, motivated by my belief that Saakashvili has betrayed his own people and country, and acts only in his own self-interests and the interests of his masters in Washington. My edits are NPOV, and will continue to be as such. The edit summary relates directly to your own with saying Georgia doesn't care; the fact is, Georgia is still a full member of the CIS for the next 12 months, whether Saakashvili likes that or not. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

CIS map (latest effort...)

I like your latest CIS map: I think it reflects the complex situation correctly. Please make sure to keep a true copy in case it gets vandalized. I only suggest changing the legend for Ukraine: "Non-member founding state". Ukraine is one of the three CIS founders, no escaping from the fact (see the proposed version put up for comments in my sandbox). --Zlerman (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Serbian Embassy image

Hi Russavia,

Thanks for your recent message about the Serbian Embassy image. I know things have gone wrong with it, I just didn't remember to specify the licence when I was uploading it, and I re-uploaded it to choose the right licence but apparently it didn't work. What do I do? The image qualifies as own work, so there should be no problems with the copyright. Do I have to delete it and re-upload? Let me know what's best to do.

I will upload more images of all the embassies at Mosfilmovskaya Street provided I get close enough to take pictures.

Take care, Denghu (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

EU and it neighbors

I am just wondering why did you make THIS [1] edit? The article did not say that they were EU members so you need to stop placing misleading information in the editing summary. Article said that Moldova and Ukraine are EU neighbors - meaning they border the EU.There is a very big difference between being a neighbor and being a "member" you need to get it fixed or I will have to revert all other edits because it does not let me do it separately.Stop placing misleading edit summaries --Satt 2 (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The mere fact that I took it to mean that Ukraine and Moldova are EU neighbours, with English as my native tongue, is evidence enough that others could misconstrue the sentence as it was written that Moldova and Ukraine are in the EU; either way that they border on the EU is quite irrelevant in the overall scheme of things --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not irrelevant and it is not very important either. Its just that when they are neighbors, they are neighbors and there is no need to remove it and misinterpret things in the edit summary. We can not assume who would "misconstrue" the statement and who would not. Whether you are a native speaker of English or not is irrelevant - even a beginner can see the difference between a "neighbor" and a "member" state.--Satt 2 (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant, it matters not that they are EU neighbours, what matters is that they are construed to be in the Russian sphere of influence, and which has until now been threatened by the US and EU. This is what this is all about, one nations sphere of influence encroaching on another's, and the EU's tacit support of such. Germany's EU neighbour is France. An EU neighbour of Latvia is Lithuania, and it is in that sense that it could very well be misconstrued. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sphere of Influence is the term from last century and that is exactly where Russian mentality still is, However, I think political opinions are irrelevant while editing the article. You have a dangerous tendency of making politics part of the discussion and even naming particular names that you dont seem to like. The fact that those countries border EU is not irrelevant because the fact that they directly border it definitely made the fears more intense. IT should be mentioned to effectively communicate the fact that they are closer to EU than Georgia is, which by itself makes fears even more intense.--Satt 2 (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sphere of influence is a term from this century, and as has been opined by many analysts on this situation, only the mentally asleep do not see what is happening here. And of course it has EVERYTHING to do with politics. Have a read of this to begin with. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not care what that article is about. All I care about is to make sure that politics has no place in the editing process.--Satt 2 (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't care what the article is about, then please also think about the consequences that certain terms and the way things are words can have; how they can come across to certain editors. Also, the removal of information is usually best done AFTER requesting a cite. If you know that the fact these countries border on the EU is reason for the EU to be scared, then you would surely also know that these ex-Soviet countries are in fact traditionally within the Russian sphere of influence; the removal seemed to me to be just a tad disruptive; much like your whacking an NPOV tag on CIS without a corresponding discussion on the talk page for it. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

table format destinations lists

Can you please have these reverted to original format as for all arline destination list articles, SilkAir destinations, AirBaltic destinations, Jat Airways destinations.116.71.46.119 (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)