Pavel Leonidovich, did you have an attitude to MIIGAiK's " Red School" in a some time? If "yes" then write to me a message or call me direct, please! B.R.,
Alex Filippov gis_n_map (at) yahoo.com, (cell) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedSchool ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I replied on the talk page for you. Let's work together on this and ensure that the information shown is most accurate. Thank you for your input! Rarelibra 16:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Bogomolov - my software (MapInfo) does direct translation of Microstation files... so yes, I can view/use DGN format. Rarelibra 13:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, your new maps look nice. I only checked the first two of them so far, and noticed some inconsistencies with Bayan-Ölgii. As a minor point, you spelled Ölgii, Altantsögts, and Delüün without the umlauts. More importantly, my sources indicate that there is also a sum named Tsagannuur, which seems to occupy part of what you currently have as Nogoonnuur and possibly part of Ulaankhus. Any way to confirm this? -- Latebird 10:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think table vertical size is an issue. If we don't use a table, the result will still be long due to the sheer amount of information that needs to be put in. What's more, quite a few featured lists have very long tables, so I believe it is not a problem at all.
It's a pity that foundation dates are not available :( Well, I guess that can be address later; what's not there is not there...
Maps, those also can be addressed after the table is completed. User:Rarelibra has created overview maps for some federal subjects for this project; maybe he'll agree to make an overview map and a set of locator maps for Moscow Oblast as well. Of course, once we have the maps, the tricky part will be to figure out where to place them. I have that same problem with Adygea. If you have ideas, I'll be happy to hear them out.
Using my (future) table will be reasonable to make short district level table. Or it is possible add district statistics into first one? I don't think so. We can always try; that's as good an idea as any. Let's complete the main table first, though.
Of course we have all data to prepare in future every urban/rural settlement lokalities lists (articles?) I was leaning towards putting lists of rural localities into the articles about districts (see Giaginsky District for an example), and only indicating the number of rural localities per rural settlement (or even just the number of rural settlements and the number rural localities they include) in the overview lists such as this one. The benefits of such approach are that the main list is not overloaded with lists of each and every village, and that double-maintenance is avoided (otherwise, every time there is a change, one would need to amend both the main list and the district article). Cities/towns/urban-type settlements, on the other hand, can be listed in both places, as their numbers are a lot more manageable and changes do not occur as often.
In conclusion, before you start putting time into completing the final table, let me ask for an opinion of User:David Kernow, who's been of immense help in the past regarding these types of problems. I'm sure he'll have some valuable feedback for us to consider. Best,— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I seem to remember a while ago you were looking for a map that shows the borders between Ulaanbaatars duuregs. Ulaanbaatars official website www.ulaanbaatar.mn does contain a map that gives at least a very good idea, but it needs Flash player and is really, really slow. The map is accessible from the main page (if it's in Mongolian, look out for gazrin zurag, at the next screen click on "orox"=enter). Then you'll get a map with some roads and the Tuul and Selbe rivers. On the upper right is a box with features that can be displayed. If don't choose a feature from the list, but the one checkbox above it ("Devsger ongo"), after a while the districts should show.
The website also contains some infos on the different duuregs incl. (some) population numbers, but unfortunately not the dates when the numbers were retrieved. The official statistics seem to unaccessible (except for no. of autobuses, cinemas, head of lifestock and some more). Or at least I always got a message that I understood as "do you tell your secrets to everyone?". Yaan 11:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry of that... ;) But then we already have a better (if smaller) version on Commons. -- Latebird 10:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Uhm, because the page is at Zamïn-Üüd, Zamyn-Üüd is (was?) a redlink when I changed them. If it's incorrect feel free to change. AllynJ 15:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
moved above comment here from user page
Unfortunately, your "corrected" coordinates for Bayankhongor are not valid, still less located in Mongolia, as they have a latitude of > 90°. You seem to have transposed latitude and longitude: can you check your other similar edits to check that they do not contain any similar mistakes? -- The Anome 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I've corrected Bayankhongor coordinates because NO online cities lists have correct data for this city. With lat/lon - it is my mistake, thanks. Happens. For coordinates data correction I'm using Google Earth, where I'm looking for city IMAGE (not red spot from vector levels). You can check Erdenetsogt - it has 10 miles shift from its real location to SE. ALL Mongolian cities locations need to be corrected. If I will find any time, I will do that. And it is an other one problem - from online databases to WP were loaded cities with wrong names (not locations only) and settlements which dissolved decades ago. I mean Tüyin-goliin hid (you can find it in GE close to Erdenetsogt) or Jargalan (close to the real Bayankhongor location). I was in the expedition to the East Kazakhstan, so my answer delay...
Thank you for your attention. Bogomolov.PL 08:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The two have somewhat different meanings. "Subdivision" is the act of subdividing, both as a concrete action or as a more abstract process. "Subdivisions" are the units that result from the act of subdivision, that is, they are the units into which the aimag is subdivided.
From a couple of online dictionaries:
1. the act or fact of subdividing. 2. a product of subdividing, as a section of a department. 3. a portion of land divided into lots for real-estate development. 4. Botany, Mycology. a category of related classes within a division or phylum.
n. 1. a. The act or process of subdividing. b. A subdivided part. 2. An area of real estate composed of subdivided lots.
In this case, 'subdivisions' seems better, because Sums are administrative subdivisions of the aimag. 'Subdivision' is not impossible, in the sense of "the way the aimag is administratively subdivided", but frankly it sounds awkward. I would recommend "Subdivisions".
Yes, I'm in Ulaanbaatar now. I don't know enough about Mongolia to contribute very much. I have got involved in a rather protracted wrangle at China!
Bathrobe 12:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on correcting geodata values. It's very much appreciated. -- The Anome 12:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi!
A while ago, you asked me about creating a Khotgoid article. Sounds like a good idea, but I'm a bit lazy now. If you'd like to create an article, please do. Re. etymology, my sources (that Hövsgöl aimgiin lavlah tol and another similar book from 1991) say that the name might also be related to sheep (the first one: derived from khot khonitoi, the other one: derived from the Oirat word koi or khoi = sheep).
I also got across another source on Khatgals administrative status. According to that source (some management plan for the Khövsgöl National Park), Khatgal is a somewhat autonomous part of Alag-Erdene sum, not independent from it. The english translation of the plan stated that the local Khural had 20 members, eight from Khatgal and twelve from Alag-Erdene, but that Khatgal has its own budget. I already changed it in the Khatgal and Khövsgöl articles and in the template. If you don't like it, just undo.
Last, not least: Do you have any info on the status of the Mongolian Power grid? They seem to be making real progress in Khövsgöl, with Alag-Erdene and Khatgal having been connected this year and Tömörbulag, Arbulag and Bayanzürkh apparently in the pipeline (Bürentogtokh and most of the southeastern and, apparently, southern sums are already connected). Of course this may be related to ministers Enkhtuvshin and esp. Erdenebat plus former minister Gundalai having their constuencies in the area, so it would be interesting to know what the situation is like in other areas.
Regards, Yaan 10:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice - I log on this morning and check to see that I have a full critique of my map. Next time at least say hello first. Rarelibra 12:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Your map has white holes in Achaea and Attica.
Achaea was a coding mistake in my query, with Attica - you probably missed the image summary of "The map is incomplete due to the unavailable data for East Attica prefecture. This will be resolved soon."
Symi island needs to be divided in two (Nimos island is separate). Sesklio needs to be added.
Research generalization - specifially, read more about simplification. Depending on the scale, an item may or may not be denoted to a level of detail, complexity, or delineation - it all solely depends on the source data. You also forgot to mention Marmaras Island. And Khodros Island as well. :)
Kastelorizo, Stroggyli Kastellorizou, Rho Island have to be added.
Kasterlorizo is quite small - in fact, Microsoft's software shows it connected to the Turkish mainland. Really - the island is 10 km². And Stroggyli Kastellorizou - even more so at 0.9 km² (both Microsoft and Google have apparently forgotten to show this important island with one building on it). Rho Island is definitely an oversight - so thank you for catching that.
Kalolimnos island has to be added.
The reference map I used did not have this island on it - but I have verified it via Google and Microsoft. You forgot to mention Nera, Pita, Imia, and Zouka - but I added those as well. (Pita, Imia, and Zouka somehow didn't make it on the Google and Microsoft maps either).
Leipsoi on your map is in two parts, but it is single island.
This came from the low-res set. I put added the bridge in there. But again, research Simplification - as this can happen with low res sets.
Oinousses island has East neighbour (Greec also), you need add it.
Sure thing - didn't want Oinousses to be lonely. ;)
1. Ammouliani isles (near Halkidiki).
My oversight.
2. Psathoura.
Yeah. But you also forgot to mention Skantili, Korakas, and Adelfopoulo.
3. Kythnos.
This was a query error.
4. Gios Georgios.
Do you mean Agios Georgios in Corfu? There is no such thing as "Gios Georgios."
5. Islands along Attika South coast.
Can't believe I missed such unnamed islands! :)
6. Christiana Island.
A tiny, rocky speck of an island used for bird-watching. Wow, can't believe I missed it. ;)
7. Pachia and Makra.
The reference map I used did not have these smaller islands on it - but I have verified them via Google and Microsoft.
8. Zafora, Chamili, Astakida etc.
The reference map I used did not have these smaller islands on it - but I have verified them via Google and Microsoft.
9. Kandelioussa, Pergausa, Pacheia.
The reference map I used did not have these smaller islands on it - but I have verified them via Google and Microsoft.
10.Archagellos (north from Leros).
A smaller island, again - possibly trivial, since there were even smaller islands missed (including Patelidi, Tripiti, Strogilli, Agia Kyriaki, Mikro Glaronissi, and Megalo Glaronissi).
Methana is a peninsula.
This is another detail/scale/resolution thing, but ok. Added.
Kythira and Antikythera shapes are wrong.
Noted. I have corrected their shapes.
Limni Vouliagmeni is lake, not Korinthos Bay part.
After locating this, I can understand your concern (though I feel is very, very detailed in nature).
Greec - Turkish border is too straight (Evros river is not so straight).
The reference layer I use is low-resolution. There are times that I come across high(er) resolution data sets, and I try to incorporate those into my own set. But when using reference maps, I am limited to the reference detail and resolution. You should know this, as a fellow cartographer.
Near Ioannina is a black spot.
Software error - corrected.
Near Kremasta (lake) is a black spot.
Software error - corrected.
Just so you know, the references I used were from a friend of mine who does a lot of mapping on Greek Wiki (and lives there). I used his reference maps. Not all maps are the same, nor are they perfect. I didn't expect a full-out critique to the level of detail that you included. Don't get me wrong - I appreciate you spending an hour (!!!). But I spent many hours researching and adding such. Remember - this is my hobby.
I tried not to take your critique to heart, but some of the mentioned items seem quite trivial for the detail of the map. To mention an island left out (a larger one, that is) is one thing, to criticize the border between two countries is without merit, especially with the scope, resolution, and detail of the actual project and/or map. Keep that in mind.
What I took to heart is you looked at something and - several times - shot a critique for islands that are quite small in comparison to the map scale. The bird island - article in Wiki or not - is small and non defining of the border. If I was submitting a map for dissertation, I'm quite certain my sources would be quite detailed and the map would take months to create. But this is a hobby, and the sources I used - Greek sources - in some cases, did not have the smaller islands on there (thus, it was a luxury for me to go back and reference them in). Your criticism is unwelcomed. If you created a map of the US, for example, as a straight line along Mexico - the first thing I would do would not be to complain about the level of detail and the meandering Rio Grande. I would, instead, look at the context of the map. This isn't a National Geographic project we are talking about here, it is a reference map for a Wikipedia article. Some of my sources have high-res data sets, some do not.
I would hate to do a map of Papua New Guinea and have the same level of critique ;) Rarelibra 18:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Just one more quick note - there once was a user a while ago who attempted to label me as a 'racist' because, in his eyes, he felt that I was purposely making the text on African maps smaller. It was quite shocking, actually, to hear this and offended me greatly. I was surprised at the small-mindedness that such an individual could use in throwing around such a strong accusation based off of something so objective as a map. That is like that people who try to sue Rand McNally because their map shows a road continuing through an area where a truck driver, looking at the map, drove off the road into a culvert - ignoring the big "ROAD CONSTRUCTION" signs.
While I don't take the same offense here - viewing some helpful corrections from you - it does become borderline offensive to talk about 'qualification sizing' and rationalizing 'acts' in order to point things out. There really is nothing qualifying in making a map - there are concepts of generalization, etc that help guide the cartographer into general rules of putting something together. Critics are never welcome, and objectivity is always in the eye of the viewer. Sometimes someone will complain that a map needs, say, a scale or north arrow. While legitimate, there are times when a map can be made without such and still provide reference and utility to the user.
So again - if I make a map of a lower scale/higher resolution area - you will see more detail. But be careful of such in the context of the map. Rarelibra 15:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The map is something very objective, yes. But map is made by the subjects, yes.
Map usually has the same projection at all its parts, the same signs system, same accuracy, same scale (respecting projection limitations). Is it very natural? For me is very natural.
Qualification size. I’m not sure with this term, but I hope you are understanding what I mean. It is size of geography object (river length, city population etc.) which helps formally define this object presence on the map of concrete scale and/or concrete category. Example: on a soil map we will show only provincial cities only, but on a population map with the same scale – all the cities, but no soils.
Concrete qualification sizes values are defined for topo maps and several nautical, geology maps etc. For them are instructions and everybody has respect them, if no – it will be not topo, nautical or geology map, but something else.
If somebody is creating map not mentioned above, this map author can make own rules for map creating.
I was trying to analyze your conception of the map. For me was very natural to find the rules you used. First of all I wanted find the island size limitations – what size is shown at your map. I’ve found, that the smallest islands were 4 pixels size, I’ve calculated, that it is approx. 1 sq.km. You see I didn’t add to the corrections list islands with the size less than 1 sq.km. I hoped you had (may be spontaneous) filter – “I will not digitize this island, it is too small”. I’ve created the qualification size for me, because in my small job I was using detailed maps and I need to make the same decisions to put island on the list or not.
Using qualification size filter is normal for automatic generalization, isn’t it? It looks like you’ve used it – only 1 (one) island on your map was less than qualification size value. It was not any surprise for me, it was very natural in my opinion. Bogomolov.PL 16:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Your map latest version has not existing in reality island NE from Rhodes (NW from Megisti=Kastelorizo). It is a Turkish peninsula, not Greek island. Hello!
I am border sensitive, yes. You are a cartographer too and that is why I am sure you are understanding me. My presence in Wiki is not any profession, you see. You understand - to erase something is the esiest process... You made a large work in adding islands and other corrections, your map is better now, thank you. Bogomolov.PL 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow - can't believe I didn't catch that, but yes - it was a Colombian map source. Thank you for finding this! I will correct this by tomorrow. Rarelibra 23:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point - will ensure the colors align. I'm not too concerned with coterminous areas - the colors are assigned by random selection in the software query. The numbers point out the different areas. As far as the 2004 census data, I don't remember reverting anything - thus, I don't know why you would make such a statement. I don't do statistics anywhere (don't really care), just the maps. I do know that the table needed to be updated because it didn't list the name of one of the governorates (Amanat Al Asimah), and the map wasn't showing two of the governorates (Amanat Al Asimah and Raymah). The reference I have is directly from the Ministry web site of Yemen. -- Rarelibra ( talk) 18:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I know exactly what happened. I updated the table on the main Yemen page at 2007-11-16T09:52:59 and then I preceded to copy that update to the Governorates of Yemen page at 2007-11-16T09:54:48. I didn't INTENTIONALLY mean to revert your edits. However, in the line of my defense - you have been INCONSISTENT with your edits, being that you updated the information for the table on the Governorates of Yemen page but you failed to carry those updates forward to the same table on the regular Yemen page under the 'Governorates and districts' section. So in the midst of my updating, it ended up carrying the information from the main article to the governorates article, which subsequently changed the 2004 information you mention. All you needed to do is to investigate as I did to find this - there was no need to not assume good faith and to get angry and make accusations in BOLD above. I appreciate your feedback at times, but this is too much, and I expect you to see that it was UNINTENTIONAL because of the two tables. Rarelibra ( talk) 14:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bogomolov, I updated the East-Hem 1200ad.jpg map, as per your suggestions. Thank you very much for those. You may still see some differences, which I explain on the talk page for the image. I haven't been able to devote much time to figuring out how to combine the maps as you described, but hopefully I'll get some time to do that this week. Thank you again for your help (it is now noted on the image's description page), and if you feel like doing the same with any of the other maps, please do! Respectfully, Thomas Lessman 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice find - and easy fix. I moved the page to Communes of Burkina Faso, relabeled the template, and the images within the article. Also added the reference you provided from the official Census report. The page was created based off of the information from Statoids (2004/2005) but seems it wasn't as accurate as the information you found. Rarelibra ( talk) 16:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the great map of Moscow Oblast! You wouldn't happen to have it in svg by any chance?— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 15:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I see everything ok. The FireFox problems were resolved? I can try again with Moscow Oblast now. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 17:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
To my idea it can be this way:
What you see? Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 18:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Several months ago (see Talk:Administrative divisions of Moscow Oblast) I've pointed your attention on [11] where on p.1 is written "территориальные единицы Московской области - сельские поселения", so rural settlements (not localities) are territorial units. Here are corrections to the administrative-territorial division law [12], I can cite:words "rural okrugs, as well urban localities (cities, work and dacha settlements) replace with word "territorial units". Stop. If we will subtract rural settlements - what would we get? Urban settlements territories, isn't it? From spacial point of view it is clear (we are talking about future map, I guess). And we have now in Dmitrovsky rayon 6 rural settlements and 5 urban, not 400 as you think. And what will be difference to the municipality map? Only the merging of several cities (I listed above) to the rayons. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 06:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Your interpretation is: every rural locality has to be territorial unit. The law text you citing tells us that territorial unit is possible be:
Future law text tells us [13]:
16) территориальная единица — это часть территории Московской области — населенный пункт (город районного подчинения, рабочий или дачный поселок городского типа, сельский населенный пункт) либо группа населенных пунктов, не являющихся в соответствии с настоящим Законом административно-территориальной единицей (сельское поселение, территория для развития города или поселка городского типа);
So is possible individual TU:
OR are possible "collective" units:
You can find in this text, that territory for development means rural localities territory over municipal rule of the city or urban-type settlement. That was the idea of the new law.
Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 07:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The territories for development is the future draft term, but the sense of this term is obvious: the rural parts of municipal urban settlements and okrugs. These "territories for development" are the territorial units as corresponding cities/urban-type settlements. So at administrative map we don't need both cities/urban-type settlements and "territories for development" (and rural settlements also), the urban okrugs and administrative rayons wold be present only. But administrative-territorial division map would reflect territorial units also, so all territorial units mentioned above (individual and "collective") have to be present. You are missing the task of this map if you want to ingnore "territories for development" - what would be shown at these empty spaces? Are these territories out of territorial division? They are territorial division units, you see. It does not mean that corresponding cities/urban-type settlements would not be shown - they are the territorial units also. So the main visible difference between the municipal and territorial division map would be separation cities/urban-type settlements proper from surrounding rural parts (if present) of municipal urban settlements and okrugs. The second difference will be merging of several urban okrugs to the administrative rayons as territorial units. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 07:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
About villages. Village proper is settlement in its boundaries, all lands inside are settlement lands category(земли поселений). Settlement lands category includes housing, industrial zones, transportation (roads), forested lads, waters, agriculture lands etc. It is not a village in a common sense. Very often farm for cattle, pigs, chicken etc. and harvester, lorries and tractors yard are out of the village boundaries as farm and machine yard are the parts of surrounding agriculture lands (not settlement lands category). So village in its boundaries can be wider (including forest, pond or lawns) or smaller (excluding cowsheds and machine yard).
Administrative-territorial UNITS map. (NOT Administrative-territorial DIVISION!)
Overall, this sounds good. That exactly describes the overview map I had in mind. The only thing I am not quite sure I understand is why you listed the cities under the oblast jurisdiction twice (items 2 and 6).— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Administrative-territorial division (NOT UNITS!) map.
The same plus:
Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Overall, apart from the point raised above, this sounds right.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The information you provided here is at risk of being reverted if you don't reveal the source of your data. What you wrote sounds important, so thanks for your cooperation. -- Poeticbent talk 19:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Absolute numbers with Polish language of education at schools(rayons rural schools):
Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 09:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"Государственный плановый комитет Литовской ССР. Министерство высшего и среднего специального образования Литовской ССР. АТЛАС ЛИТОВСКОЙ ССР. Главное управление геодезии и картографии при Совете Министров СССР. Москва 1981" Extraction city/towns data (polish schools) is more complex - data were shown with circles divided in sectors. This atlas has also ethnic distribution map, where for every homested goup less then 50 person, every village of population 50 to 200 were shown dominating ethnicity, for localities 200< share of ethnicities using pieslice method Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 15:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It has a sense in comparision to the data from [14], when in independent Lithuania number of Polish pupils doubled (russian schools were closed, no russian schools - no choise), but since 2001 declined again. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 16:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
apparently it's at 50°29'35"N, 100°10'15"E. Forgot to ask whether this one is Modot tolgoi or Baga hüi, though. Yaan ( talk) 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
|
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to invite you to the Mongolia work group of the WikiProject Central Asia. You're welcome to add that page to your watchlist and participate in discussions there. So far, many general discussions about topics related to Mongolia have been discussed on individual user's talk pages, away from the attention of a wider audience. I hope that a centralized talk page will make communication between all of us easier. If a question doesn't primarily concern just one specific user, then the work group is probably the right place to ask it. See you there! -- Latebird ( talk) 06:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Demographics of Mongolia now makes it seem as if birth rate equals death rate, no matter which statisticians you ask. But the population growth is not zero, so there I guess there may have been a small mix-up. Yaan ( talk) 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Rarelibra! It is not any personal attack, but resolving of my question can make your maps better, I hope. Your map of Yemen governorates shows common Oman/Yemen border with almost strait line, but at your Oman admin divisions and Districts of Oman maps this border line has very notable vertexes. It means no man's land in very politically drastic region of Dofar and/or territorial claims of one/both of these two countries? I'm very, very border sensitive, you see. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 06:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I would think you have time for something more productive than to attempt to compare two different maps. Honestly. I can understand if it was a map of the region and the borders didn't match - but please stop this kind of nonsensical comparison. It is like comparing and apple to an orange at this point. If you want to see my database, contact me offline and I'll send you a shapefile (or whatever you need). Rarelibra ( talk) 13:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't checked - but am I the only one that you are following and offering critque to for every map I produce? If so, then we have a problem. I never asked for cartography lessons - I studied under one of the authors of "Elements of Cartography". What I am saying is this - I shouldn't have to explain to you that in my database, the borders are correct. After having updated Oman, the border for Yemen is updated as well. But there is no need to go back and change the map of Yemen - as they are two separate maps. And it is unfair to compare such unless we are at a convention for cartographers or in an institutional environment of discussion. If I made a map of the region, it would be correct. So it is unfair to do what you are doing, my friend. So don't. Please. Rarelibra ( talk) 15:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Not emotional at all. Your example of comparing 50 to 51 is invalid because that is a count comparison. this map does not compare with this map, but they exist as two separate maps. Yet I don't see you offering up suggestions to those cartographers. this map shows a lake, where this one does not. Why isn't that an issue? They are two separate maps. Rarelibra ( talk) 16:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Bogomolov - you are incorrect. this map does not compare with this map ... boundaries are different (look at the corner of one versus the other). Period. Rarelibra ( talk) 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm done talking with you, Bogomolov. Rarelibra ( talk) 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Спасибо. Мы плохо искали, значит :)— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 18:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe these analogies are correct. The situation with Gruyère is not the same.
At any rate, you'd be better off voicing your opinion on the survey page. The whole point of that survey is to collect as many opinions as possible. Cheers,— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 15:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear AjaxSmack! In your last edit you erased Mongolian and Tibetan names explanation from article text. In your commentary you are declaring these names as foreign. It would be not any news for you that Tibetans are native population for the region and the same with Mongolians. So why you call them foreigners?. You know, I guess, that the most part of Tibetans and Mongolians live in China and Qinghai Lake region is one of the territories historically populated with these nations. In simple words, they are native. But I can note that Mongolian name with using Cyrillic (not traditional Mongol alphabet) is not correct - only this sentence (Cyrillic) is possible clame foreign. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 06:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I did remove the Mongolian and Tibetan names from the running text but they are still over in the Language Infobox on the right just below the Lake Infobox. You'll also note I added the Mongolian name to the box (thanks to User:Yaan for the image). It is not necessary to repeat the names in two areas of the article but the English historical name, Kokonor, is important to include. You are correct that I called these names foreign. I meant they are foreign to English speakers, the target audience of English Wikipedia, not to Qinghai natives. — AjaxSmack 07:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? don't say that! Yaan ( talk) 13:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
On your map of Mongolian sums, you don't have a label on one of the sums in Darkhan-Uul. Rarelibra ( talk) 18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Bogomolov - I made a new map for the Districts and LLGs of Papua New Guinea. If you have any feedback, I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks! Rarelibra ( talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello back.
Do you mean irrigated farming? Or just (plain) farming? Regards, Yaan ( talk) 15:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I will try to follow in your footsteps and see if I can get dms coordinates of placenames in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in the same way. -- Zlerman ( talk) 06:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Maplandia is also good for places ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with the change. Thanks for your hard work ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Now the only question left is what transliteration would be best for English Wikipedia? Recommendations? Renata ( talk) 05:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for adding the table, but I think there are two problems:
Btw. the strong decrease of "Chinese" and "Russian" from 1963 to 1969, and the corresponding rise of "others" also looks a bit strange - could they be connected?
Regards, Yaan ( talk) 15:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Reflecting back on the discussion we had about islands displayed in Google and Microsoft - it is now proven that those sources, in many cases, have highly INACCURATE data. One such example is where they show ownership of South Korean islands to North Korea. This was even challenged by the South Korean government, yet the data hasn't changed. Because the government website has those islands assigned as they are, I am more inclined to believe them than Google or Microsoft. Rarelibra ( talk) 13:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I’m sure you are remembering that not only Google Map and Microsoft Virtual Earth are depicting Treasury Islands, Shortland Islands and Fauro Island as Solomon property.
There are Australian sources:
Solomon Islans sources:
USA sources:
British sources:
U.N. sources:
I'm sure you can find a lot of sources, where Treasury Islands, Shortland Islands and Fauro Island are in Solomon Islands. The WikiPedia, as you know, is one of these sources.
As you know, dear RareLibra, we can find only ONE source where Treasury Islands, Shortland Islands and Fauro Island are shown as Papua-New Guinean. It is the Papua-New Guinea University site digital map. The rest of the maps (your and Aliasd) are this source replics.
Is it possible that all platoon is out of step?
Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 07:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you flying with Aeroflot? Yaan ( talk) 14:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Just so you are informed correctly, Bogomolov - you ARE allowed to edit your talk page. You can remove comments as you please, and this even includes warnings. It has history and precedent in Wikipedia. There is NO requirement that you MUST keep something on your own talk page - nor is it required to keep some 'shameful' other posts, such as warnings. So my conversation with you is over - and I am removing it. Please do not banter about this with me, thank you. If you continue to revert, I will report you for violating 3RR. Let's move on from here... and don't ever try to lecture me with a condescending tone of "dear" or otherwise. Rarelibra ( talk) 16:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Check out this article about how Google Earth has replaced it's current images of New Orleans with pre-Katrina images. Nice. So let the world think there is no destruction. Another reason why we cannot trust Google. If you want to respond ONLY to this, feel free (I'm through with the previous topic). Rarelibra ( talk) 19:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The topic of this discussion is not a Google Map or Virtual Earth cartographic quality. These sources are commercial and can not be more relevant than official or encyclopedic sources. You invited me to check your map Papua New Guinea LLGs.png. This kind of map checking is normal in professional map production. I've noticed inconcistency in ALL availiable for me on a moment on-line mapping sources (Google Map and Virtual Earth too) and your map.
Later (14, 15 of May) we had e-mail coversation out of WikiPedia. In this opinions exchange I've added more sources claiming Treasury Islands, Shortland Islands and Fauro Island are the Solomon Islands property. This kind of discussion is completely correct for the encyclopedic quality improving. As you, RareLibra, pointed on my map mistakes.
You, RareLibra, 2 months later posted this on my talkpage, where informed me about Google and MicroSoft online mapping sources innacuracy. This, in your opinion, changed the situation - Treasury Islands, Shortland Islands and Fauro Island now can be Papua New Giunean, not the Solomon Islands.
After this declaration I've posted 18 availiable sources of government(U.S. Dept of State, C.I.A, Australian Defence Ministery, British Amiralty etc.), international (U.N.), ecyclopedic (Britannica) and etc. Today I can add one more, the 19-th, source: U.N. Map of vicinity of Bougainville island. So the question of Treasury Islands, Shortland Islands and Fauro Island is not a question of political dispute, but the question of quality of map used for your map creation. And, of course, is not any question of Google Map quality.
My intention is to improve the WikiPedia maps quality, even if these maps were made by you. We (you or me) cannot decide these islands belonging. The relevant sources have to decide this. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 10:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Listed sources on WikiPedia Commons are divided into two groups:
Larger one depicts Treasury Islands, Shortland Islands and Fauro Island as Solomon Islands territory ("YEA"), on a left side.
Small one depicts Treasury Islands, Shortland Islands and Fauro Island as Papua New Guinea territory ("NAY"), on a right side.
This inconsitency in WikiPedia is a problem to resolve. Would you, RareLibra, make steps forward to resolve it?
Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 16:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
You are greatly mistaken, Bogomolov. Just so you are informed correctly, here you go:
If you read the policy HERE, you will see it states
Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred.
Important exceptions may include declined unblock requests (while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppetry notices, or for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates. In these cases it may be legitimate in order to keep a user from gaming the system. Such templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question, but to display important information about blocks and sockpuppetry.
As you can see, it IS NOT REQUIRED for a user to keep information on their talk page.
Also, please note the policy HERE, where it states
If a user removes a comment from their own talk page, (legitimate or not), it should remain removed. By removing the comment, the user has verified that they have read it. The comment is still in the page history, so it is not important to keep it visible just to prove that the user was told about it.
Users who repeatedly restore the same comment to another user's talk page may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule or harassing another user, regardless of if the talk page is for a registered or unregistered "anonymous" editor.
so as you can see, again, it is NOT REQUIRED for me to keep your comments on my talk page. In fact, I am warning you now - if you persist to put up stuff again, I will get an administrator involved to help clarify with you. I am DONE talking about island maps with you - I was trying to point out the GROSS INCONSISTENCIES in Google's data.
No more discussion with you, if you continue to act like you do. Please don't clutter my talk page with maps and such. Remember what it states above - you can violate the 3RR rule if you continue to restore that information on my talk page.
Rarelibra ( talk) 18:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm new to mongolian geographical names - I just see that Egiin Gol is with Gol and Üür gol is with gol... -- katpatuka ( talk) 14:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Several weeks ago I've got the complete set of Mongolian (2003 issue) topo maps (1:500 000, in Mongolian). I think it can be used as official(=relevant) source for the actual Mongolian toponyms. Romanization rules are: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mongolian), so Ih-Uul is not correct, but Ikh-Uul only. Bogomolov.PL ( talk)
I think you forgot to move the main page (or was this impossible)? I prefer "Ulaanbaatar", so I won't move this myself. Just let you know. Regards, Yaan ( talk) 15:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
If you are a
cartographer wouldn't you like to join
OpenStreetMap? Because of their
licensing policy there could be created nice looking maps without any copyright constraints. Especially the
cycle map creates beutiful overlayed topographic maps using NASA's SRTM data...
The main problem is that there are still huge amounts of white areas which need to be filled as well as country and province borders to be drawn! If you don't know OSM yet just drop an eye on it ;-) --
katpatuka (
talk)
08:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just recognized a problem with the length of the Egiin Gol river. Hovsgolian source (M.Nyamaa) says it is 535 km, statistical yearbook 2007, p. 75, says it is 475. My guess is that the statistical yearbook is probably the more respectable source, but in any way it might be better to check one or two more sources. Any idea where to look (except using a pair of compasses) ? Yaan ( talk) 11:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, may I ask what length exactly you measure? I assume it is the total length of a set of lines that roughly follow the river's centerline, but did you use straight lines or (non-linear) splines, and how exactly did you determine the location of the knots, i.e. where the individual lines or splines end? Regards, Yaan ( talk) 14:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mongolia Arhangay 2005 sum.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Latebird ( talk) 13:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! If you got a moment, would you be able to add anything to the discussion here? Thanks!— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 15:12, December 15, 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I have tried to make a map with district names on the basis of your map. It looks fine in Inkscape but in IExplorer I can only see black squares instead of text. Do you see the same? How can one fix it? Thanks. Ivan Volodin ( talk) 14:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just uploaded that map here. The image is a bit raw currently because the university computers have no useful image processing software, feel free to cut it a bit. Also the quality of the scan is not as good as I expected. So hopefully Berlin State Library will one day digitize their map collection. I think that the river that enters from the right at J-26 is Shishged gol, and that the one that joins Shishged gol from northern direction at J-23 is Bilin gol (B-e(or a)-l-i-? gh-o-o-l). But you might want to check with someone who can either read Mongolian or Chinese. Regards, Yaan ( talk) 14:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you checked the sources I provided? They formally became ZATOs on January 19, 2009.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 20:36, February 5, 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the article change on Latvia: "known" to "understand". My implication was that the majority of older Latvians understand (i.e. can speak and comprehend the Russian language.) To simply say they "know" Russian can seem to imply they merely are "aware" of the Russian language. It was just a grammatical change. Yes, of course most older ethnic Latvians were taught Russian and can speak and comprehend it. ExRat ( talk) 21:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help with the correct transliteration of the Confederation of Mongolian Trade Unions.-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 12:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Sprawa tkwi w czymś innym. Dwa lata temu był mały spór dotyczący zagłębia węglowego (m.in. Upper Silesian Coal Basin, ale też GOP i ROW). Spór toczył się zarówno na Wikipedii jak i poza nią. Ogólnie przyjęto, że Górnośląskie Zagłębie Węglowe to obszar metropolitalny i artykuł o zagłębiu (czyli o gospodarce) dotyczył obszaru metropolitalnego i stąd spór. Ktoś wpadł na bardzo interesujący pomysł, aby utworzyć osobne artykuły o zagłębiu i aglomeracjach. Tak też zrobiłem. Hasło Upper Silesian Coal Basin które już dawniej poprawiono jest o polsko-czeskim zagłębiu węglowym i istnieje osobny artykuł (utworzony wczoraj) o polsko-czeskim obszarze metropolitalnym (obejmującym obszar głównie zagłębia), ale o urbanistycznym tworze a nie przemysłowym. I byłoby wszystko dobrze jakby Polaron się nie mieszał w sprawy o których nie ma pojęcia. Jego małą wiedzę na temat tego obszaru metropolitalnego widać choćby w tej edycji gdzie np. część województwa małopolskiego (Lesser Poland Voivodeship) czyli np. Chrzanów czy Oświęcim podpiął pod szerszą definicję (tą 5 milionową) a nie konurbacji katowickiej (2,7 do 3 mln) oraz pisze że Racibórz tworzy 100,000 obszar metropolitalny. To tak jak napisać, że 10,000 miasteczko to metropolia ;p LUCPOL ( talk) 15:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe the current state of affairs (at least at the time that I wrote this) is now acceptable to both LUCPOL and myself so I don't forsee any further back and forth. Thank you for your efforts and it would probably be good if you can keep an eye on both of us to make sure that all the relevant articles maintain some level of reliability. I believe the main issue was identifying the immediate Katowice metropolitan area as the wider Silesian-Moravian region. In any case, I think it's all good now. Thanks. -- Polaron | Talk 19:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I understand the source I used for creating the article says there are some glaciers (or "mös gol", whatever it means) on that mountain, but I can't see any on google maps. Do you have any idea? Regards, Yaan ( talk) 11:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you please check the source you cite for the updated population numbers in Provinces of Uzbekistan? The tables in the cited reference end with page 175 ("Paid services rendered to the population") and there is no page 176 that you give as the source for population by province. Thank you. -- Zlerman ( talk) 11:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! Would you be able to amend the maps of Moscow Oblast in administrative divisions of Moscow Oblast to account for Losino-Petrovsky and Elektrogorsk becoming oblast-level cities effective April 5? Thanks!— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 16:25, April 15, 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think the number of 1024 km from Ider gol source to Lake Baikal is very plausible. If we accept that Ideriin gol is around 452 km long, then that would leave less than 600 km between lake Baikal and the confluence of Ideriin gol and Delgermurun. That just does not seem convincing when looking at a map.
Could the 1024 vs. 992 be just the result of two different measurements, with different maps, maybe? Yaan ( talk) 16:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Bogomolov, I appreciate your mapping work. However, it has a mistake. Orkhon province is painted in red, where Elbegdorj won according to your montsame source. In addition, in Ulaanbaatar city, Bagakhangai and Nalaikh are the least populated area and geographically very small but you show it very big. Can you edit this and reload your new map? Thanks. Compbok ( talk) 02:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, do you have a blank sum map and ulaanbaatar map? -- Chinneeb my talk 11:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Just giving you a heads up that I made most of the changes per your suggestions and responded to all of the map issues (those raised at the Talk page and the EB Talk page) at File talk:EasternBloc BorderChange38-48.svg. As an aside, I found many of your comments to be helpful, and the map making/editing process overall to be enjoyable. Mosedschurte ( talk) 22:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi again,
The list at aimags of Mongolia currently states that Bayan-Ulgii has 13 sums, while the 2006 statistical yearbook says it should be 14 (p.64). Just wanted to let you know. Yaan ( talk) 19:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding cited and sourced content to the Kazakhs article. Both your edits and the new content look great! — Kralizec! ( talk) 15:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you meant... Can you give me a link to the talk page? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 17:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks, good call. Don't know where my head was, I was only looking at transliteration based on the Kazakh name and even didn't think to check the books. What's the best course? A simple cut and paste from Bokei to Bukey, or a delete/move? Otebig ( talk) 20:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() | On June 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oyu Tolgoi mine, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this is interesting for you, but this article has a map with horoo boundaries on p.10. It seems to cover only a part of the area that your düüreg map covers, though. And I wonder if the population density numbers for the areas NW of the city center are correct. Yaan ( talk) 23:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, do you know the difference between 'horoo' and 'horoolol', and which of the two is synonymous with 'mikrorayon'? Yaan ( talk) 23:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, re. your question about a bus grid map, do you know where I could find one? Newer than this one? 07:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
If possible, please comment at Talk:Changkya Khutukhtu about the correct Mongolian equivalent of this title. I'm almost certain that it should be Жанжаа хутагт (Janjaa Hutagt), but I'd like additional input before adding that to the article.— Greg Pandatshang ( talk) 18:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding ( this edit); please note that {{ Coor dm}} is deprecated in the English Wikipedia; we use {{ Coord}}. Cheers, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
OK! I will stop - it was a mistake! I only wanted to knew - can I sawe all in English wiki. I undestud! Sorry! - Губин Михаил —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I have created some articles: Mongolian Wikipedia, Erdenet Mining Corporation. Please look at them! - Губин Михаил, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this article and say whether it should be renamed? Even though it's a very important subject currently there's little interest in it. Thank you. Nataev ( talk) 08:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
This article for factual correctness, comprehension and title (I suggested a more simpler one on the talk page). Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.170.84.179 ( talk) 15:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you have, or can you make, a blank map of File:Ulan Bator subdivisions.png, so that for elections we can add what sections were won by different candidats, similar to the one we have for the country File:Mongolia_blank.svg. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 05:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
you can do a favour for me and update this GDP curve till end of 2014: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transcaucasia_GDP_PPP_in_constant_prices_per_capita.png
It is exactly what I need :)
Useful were also af future estimation, e.g. with dotted lines. I can promise you: Highly likely high ranking NATO members would see your graph. Or tell me simply, where I can find out the data "GDP per capita (PPP, 2005 constant prices, US$)" that fit to your curve. The data I found are real prices in $ and do not fit to your graph.
Perhaps we can discuss it: falk.oberdorf@shape.nato.int
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flk-Brdrf ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Could you say something on this edit war? user Rajmaan is claiming Oirats Mongols are not Mongols and the "Mongol" identity was defined by the Qing. No one supported him, but he keeps posting his claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oirats#Edit_warring Thanks. 142.255.6.214 ( talk) 08:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Bogomolov.PL. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Bogomolov.PL. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Татьяна_Скоробогатова.jpg вот отсюда вырежьте!!!! Панн ( talk) 20:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Bogomolov.PL. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments; yeah, it's still very much a work in progress, I hadn't thought about them being visible on Commons. Hrm. If you have any sources for any of those, I'd love to have them. It's a bit hard to find sources and information about most of these changes. You can see that most of my "outstanding questions" (I won't even think about making it public til I have all those cleaned up, I am absolutely not going to publish an incomplete list) are things that I've seen mentioned, or saw some map of, but need more information on. Though, a quick comment: Yes, the USSR had all the Kuril Islands, but they had the northern ones from day one. Only the southern ones were annexed [and remain disputed] in 1945. From what I understand. :) Also, if you had some source explaining the status of Bukhara and Khorezm, that would be awesome; all I've been able to find is they were PSRs, then SSRs, but never 'formally' made union republics, which would have involved their addition to the constitution... I think? Thanks! -- Golbez ( talk) 01:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
WP:NATIONALIST bickering on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyrgyz Confederation. Thank you.
—DIYeditor (
talk)
08:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
После блокировки юзера стоило бы и повторно номинировать статью Kyrgyz Khanate на удаление, если это разрешено (уж извините, в этом я чуток профан). Обратите внимание, после удаления Kyrgyz Confederation, заблоченный банально перекинул всё то что было на той странице и чуток поигрался с датами, то есть это буквально еле выдерживающая критику статья, которая основывается на слове "Khanate" из энциклопедии по христианству, а так, благодарю Вас за такую тяжёлую проделанную работу. Kazman322 ( talk) 18:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Template:Tashkent Labelled Map has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
23:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Pavel Leonidovich, did you have an attitude to MIIGAiK's " Red School" in a some time? If "yes" then write to me a message or call me direct, please! B.R.,
Alex Filippov gis_n_map (at) yahoo.com, (cell) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedSchool ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I replied on the talk page for you. Let's work together on this and ensure that the information shown is most accurate. Thank you for your input! Rarelibra 16:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Bogomolov - my software (MapInfo) does direct translation of Microstation files... so yes, I can view/use DGN format. Rarelibra 13:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, your new maps look nice. I only checked the first two of them so far, and noticed some inconsistencies with Bayan-Ölgii. As a minor point, you spelled Ölgii, Altantsögts, and Delüün without the umlauts. More importantly, my sources indicate that there is also a sum named Tsagannuur, which seems to occupy part of what you currently have as Nogoonnuur and possibly part of Ulaankhus. Any way to confirm this? -- Latebird 10:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think table vertical size is an issue. If we don't use a table, the result will still be long due to the sheer amount of information that needs to be put in. What's more, quite a few featured lists have very long tables, so I believe it is not a problem at all.
It's a pity that foundation dates are not available :( Well, I guess that can be address later; what's not there is not there...
Maps, those also can be addressed after the table is completed. User:Rarelibra has created overview maps for some federal subjects for this project; maybe he'll agree to make an overview map and a set of locator maps for Moscow Oblast as well. Of course, once we have the maps, the tricky part will be to figure out where to place them. I have that same problem with Adygea. If you have ideas, I'll be happy to hear them out.
Using my (future) table will be reasonable to make short district level table. Or it is possible add district statistics into first one? I don't think so. We can always try; that's as good an idea as any. Let's complete the main table first, though.
Of course we have all data to prepare in future every urban/rural settlement lokalities lists (articles?) I was leaning towards putting lists of rural localities into the articles about districts (see Giaginsky District for an example), and only indicating the number of rural localities per rural settlement (or even just the number of rural settlements and the number rural localities they include) in the overview lists such as this one. The benefits of such approach are that the main list is not overloaded with lists of each and every village, and that double-maintenance is avoided (otherwise, every time there is a change, one would need to amend both the main list and the district article). Cities/towns/urban-type settlements, on the other hand, can be listed in both places, as their numbers are a lot more manageable and changes do not occur as often.
In conclusion, before you start putting time into completing the final table, let me ask for an opinion of User:David Kernow, who's been of immense help in the past regarding these types of problems. I'm sure he'll have some valuable feedback for us to consider. Best,— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I seem to remember a while ago you were looking for a map that shows the borders between Ulaanbaatars duuregs. Ulaanbaatars official website www.ulaanbaatar.mn does contain a map that gives at least a very good idea, but it needs Flash player and is really, really slow. The map is accessible from the main page (if it's in Mongolian, look out for gazrin zurag, at the next screen click on "orox"=enter). Then you'll get a map with some roads and the Tuul and Selbe rivers. On the upper right is a box with features that can be displayed. If don't choose a feature from the list, but the one checkbox above it ("Devsger ongo"), after a while the districts should show.
The website also contains some infos on the different duuregs incl. (some) population numbers, but unfortunately not the dates when the numbers were retrieved. The official statistics seem to unaccessible (except for no. of autobuses, cinemas, head of lifestock and some more). Or at least I always got a message that I understood as "do you tell your secrets to everyone?". Yaan 11:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry of that... ;) But then we already have a better (if smaller) version on Commons. -- Latebird 10:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Uhm, because the page is at Zamïn-Üüd, Zamyn-Üüd is (was?) a redlink when I changed them. If it's incorrect feel free to change. AllynJ 15:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
moved above comment here from user page
Unfortunately, your "corrected" coordinates for Bayankhongor are not valid, still less located in Mongolia, as they have a latitude of > 90°. You seem to have transposed latitude and longitude: can you check your other similar edits to check that they do not contain any similar mistakes? -- The Anome 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I've corrected Bayankhongor coordinates because NO online cities lists have correct data for this city. With lat/lon - it is my mistake, thanks. Happens. For coordinates data correction I'm using Google Earth, where I'm looking for city IMAGE (not red spot from vector levels). You can check Erdenetsogt - it has 10 miles shift from its real location to SE. ALL Mongolian cities locations need to be corrected. If I will find any time, I will do that. And it is an other one problem - from online databases to WP were loaded cities with wrong names (not locations only) and settlements which dissolved decades ago. I mean Tüyin-goliin hid (you can find it in GE close to Erdenetsogt) or Jargalan (close to the real Bayankhongor location). I was in the expedition to the East Kazakhstan, so my answer delay...
Thank you for your attention. Bogomolov.PL 08:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The two have somewhat different meanings. "Subdivision" is the act of subdividing, both as a concrete action or as a more abstract process. "Subdivisions" are the units that result from the act of subdivision, that is, they are the units into which the aimag is subdivided.
From a couple of online dictionaries:
1. the act or fact of subdividing. 2. a product of subdividing, as a section of a department. 3. a portion of land divided into lots for real-estate development. 4. Botany, Mycology. a category of related classes within a division or phylum.
n. 1. a. The act or process of subdividing. b. A subdivided part. 2. An area of real estate composed of subdivided lots.
In this case, 'subdivisions' seems better, because Sums are administrative subdivisions of the aimag. 'Subdivision' is not impossible, in the sense of "the way the aimag is administratively subdivided", but frankly it sounds awkward. I would recommend "Subdivisions".
Yes, I'm in Ulaanbaatar now. I don't know enough about Mongolia to contribute very much. I have got involved in a rather protracted wrangle at China!
Bathrobe 12:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on correcting geodata values. It's very much appreciated. -- The Anome 12:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi!
A while ago, you asked me about creating a Khotgoid article. Sounds like a good idea, but I'm a bit lazy now. If you'd like to create an article, please do. Re. etymology, my sources (that Hövsgöl aimgiin lavlah tol and another similar book from 1991) say that the name might also be related to sheep (the first one: derived from khot khonitoi, the other one: derived from the Oirat word koi or khoi = sheep).
I also got across another source on Khatgals administrative status. According to that source (some management plan for the Khövsgöl National Park), Khatgal is a somewhat autonomous part of Alag-Erdene sum, not independent from it. The english translation of the plan stated that the local Khural had 20 members, eight from Khatgal and twelve from Alag-Erdene, but that Khatgal has its own budget. I already changed it in the Khatgal and Khövsgöl articles and in the template. If you don't like it, just undo.
Last, not least: Do you have any info on the status of the Mongolian Power grid? They seem to be making real progress in Khövsgöl, with Alag-Erdene and Khatgal having been connected this year and Tömörbulag, Arbulag and Bayanzürkh apparently in the pipeline (Bürentogtokh and most of the southeastern and, apparently, southern sums are already connected). Of course this may be related to ministers Enkhtuvshin and esp. Erdenebat plus former minister Gundalai having their constuencies in the area, so it would be interesting to know what the situation is like in other areas.
Regards, Yaan 10:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice - I log on this morning and check to see that I have a full critique of my map. Next time at least say hello first. Rarelibra 12:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Your map has white holes in Achaea and Attica.
Achaea was a coding mistake in my query, with Attica - you probably missed the image summary of "The map is incomplete due to the unavailable data for East Attica prefecture. This will be resolved soon."
Symi island needs to be divided in two (Nimos island is separate). Sesklio needs to be added.
Research generalization - specifially, read more about simplification. Depending on the scale, an item may or may not be denoted to a level of detail, complexity, or delineation - it all solely depends on the source data. You also forgot to mention Marmaras Island. And Khodros Island as well. :)
Kastelorizo, Stroggyli Kastellorizou, Rho Island have to be added.
Kasterlorizo is quite small - in fact, Microsoft's software shows it connected to the Turkish mainland. Really - the island is 10 km². And Stroggyli Kastellorizou - even more so at 0.9 km² (both Microsoft and Google have apparently forgotten to show this important island with one building on it). Rho Island is definitely an oversight - so thank you for catching that.
Kalolimnos island has to be added.
The reference map I used did not have this island on it - but I have verified it via Google and Microsoft. You forgot to mention Nera, Pita, Imia, and Zouka - but I added those as well. (Pita, Imia, and Zouka somehow didn't make it on the Google and Microsoft maps either).
Leipsoi on your map is in two parts, but it is single island.
This came from the low-res set. I put added the bridge in there. But again, research Simplification - as this can happen with low res sets.
Oinousses island has East neighbour (Greec also), you need add it.
Sure thing - didn't want Oinousses to be lonely. ;)
1. Ammouliani isles (near Halkidiki).
My oversight.
2. Psathoura.
Yeah. But you also forgot to mention Skantili, Korakas, and Adelfopoulo.
3. Kythnos.
This was a query error.
4. Gios Georgios.
Do you mean Agios Georgios in Corfu? There is no such thing as "Gios Georgios."
5. Islands along Attika South coast.
Can't believe I missed such unnamed islands! :)
6. Christiana Island.
A tiny, rocky speck of an island used for bird-watching. Wow, can't believe I missed it. ;)
7. Pachia and Makra.
The reference map I used did not have these smaller islands on it - but I have verified them via Google and Microsoft.
8. Zafora, Chamili, Astakida etc.
The reference map I used did not have these smaller islands on it - but I have verified them via Google and Microsoft.
9. Kandelioussa, Pergausa, Pacheia.
The reference map I used did not have these smaller islands on it - but I have verified them via Google and Microsoft.
10.Archagellos (north from Leros).
A smaller island, again - possibly trivial, since there were even smaller islands missed (including Patelidi, Tripiti, Strogilli, Agia Kyriaki, Mikro Glaronissi, and Megalo Glaronissi).
Methana is a peninsula.
This is another detail/scale/resolution thing, but ok. Added.
Kythira and Antikythera shapes are wrong.
Noted. I have corrected their shapes.
Limni Vouliagmeni is lake, not Korinthos Bay part.
After locating this, I can understand your concern (though I feel is very, very detailed in nature).
Greec - Turkish border is too straight (Evros river is not so straight).
The reference layer I use is low-resolution. There are times that I come across high(er) resolution data sets, and I try to incorporate those into my own set. But when using reference maps, I am limited to the reference detail and resolution. You should know this, as a fellow cartographer.
Near Ioannina is a black spot.
Software error - corrected.
Near Kremasta (lake) is a black spot.
Software error - corrected.
Just so you know, the references I used were from a friend of mine who does a lot of mapping on Greek Wiki (and lives there). I used his reference maps. Not all maps are the same, nor are they perfect. I didn't expect a full-out critique to the level of detail that you included. Don't get me wrong - I appreciate you spending an hour (!!!). But I spent many hours researching and adding such. Remember - this is my hobby.
I tried not to take your critique to heart, but some of the mentioned items seem quite trivial for the detail of the map. To mention an island left out (a larger one, that is) is one thing, to criticize the border between two countries is without merit, especially with the scope, resolution, and detail of the actual project and/or map. Keep that in mind.
What I took to heart is you looked at something and - several times - shot a critique for islands that are quite small in comparison to the map scale. The bird island - article in Wiki or not - is small and non defining of the border. If I was submitting a map for dissertation, I'm quite certain my sources would be quite detailed and the map would take months to create. But this is a hobby, and the sources I used - Greek sources - in some cases, did not have the smaller islands on there (thus, it was a luxury for me to go back and reference them in). Your criticism is unwelcomed. If you created a map of the US, for example, as a straight line along Mexico - the first thing I would do would not be to complain about the level of detail and the meandering Rio Grande. I would, instead, look at the context of the map. This isn't a National Geographic project we are talking about here, it is a reference map for a Wikipedia article. Some of my sources have high-res data sets, some do not.
I would hate to do a map of Papua New Guinea and have the same level of critique ;) Rarelibra 18:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Just one more quick note - there once was a user a while ago who attempted to label me as a 'racist' because, in his eyes, he felt that I was purposely making the text on African maps smaller. It was quite shocking, actually, to hear this and offended me greatly. I was surprised at the small-mindedness that such an individual could use in throwing around such a strong accusation based off of something so objective as a map. That is like that people who try to sue Rand McNally because their map shows a road continuing through an area where a truck driver, looking at the map, drove off the road into a culvert - ignoring the big "ROAD CONSTRUCTION" signs.
While I don't take the same offense here - viewing some helpful corrections from you - it does become borderline offensive to talk about 'qualification sizing' and rationalizing 'acts' in order to point things out. There really is nothing qualifying in making a map - there are concepts of generalization, etc that help guide the cartographer into general rules of putting something together. Critics are never welcome, and objectivity is always in the eye of the viewer. Sometimes someone will complain that a map needs, say, a scale or north arrow. While legitimate, there are times when a map can be made without such and still provide reference and utility to the user.
So again - if I make a map of a lower scale/higher resolution area - you will see more detail. But be careful of such in the context of the map. Rarelibra 15:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The map is something very objective, yes. But map is made by the subjects, yes.
Map usually has the same projection at all its parts, the same signs system, same accuracy, same scale (respecting projection limitations). Is it very natural? For me is very natural.
Qualification size. I’m not sure with this term, but I hope you are understanding what I mean. It is size of geography object (river length, city population etc.) which helps formally define this object presence on the map of concrete scale and/or concrete category. Example: on a soil map we will show only provincial cities only, but on a population map with the same scale – all the cities, but no soils.
Concrete qualification sizes values are defined for topo maps and several nautical, geology maps etc. For them are instructions and everybody has respect them, if no – it will be not topo, nautical or geology map, but something else.
If somebody is creating map not mentioned above, this map author can make own rules for map creating.
I was trying to analyze your conception of the map. For me was very natural to find the rules you used. First of all I wanted find the island size limitations – what size is shown at your map. I’ve found, that the smallest islands were 4 pixels size, I’ve calculated, that it is approx. 1 sq.km. You see I didn’t add to the corrections list islands with the size less than 1 sq.km. I hoped you had (may be spontaneous) filter – “I will not digitize this island, it is too small”. I’ve created the qualification size for me, because in my small job I was using detailed maps and I need to make the same decisions to put island on the list or not.
Using qualification size filter is normal for automatic generalization, isn’t it? It looks like you’ve used it – only 1 (one) island on your map was less than qualification size value. It was not any surprise for me, it was very natural in my opinion. Bogomolov.PL 16:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Your map latest version has not existing in reality island NE from Rhodes (NW from Megisti=Kastelorizo). It is a Turkish peninsula, not Greek island. Hello!
I am border sensitive, yes. You are a cartographer too and that is why I am sure you are understanding me. My presence in Wiki is not any profession, you see. You understand - to erase something is the esiest process... You made a large work in adding islands and other corrections, your map is better now, thank you. Bogomolov.PL 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow - can't believe I didn't catch that, but yes - it was a Colombian map source. Thank you for finding this! I will correct this by tomorrow. Rarelibra 23:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point - will ensure the colors align. I'm not too concerned with coterminous areas - the colors are assigned by random selection in the software query. The numbers point out the different areas. As far as the 2004 census data, I don't remember reverting anything - thus, I don't know why you would make such a statement. I don't do statistics anywhere (don't really care), just the maps. I do know that the table needed to be updated because it didn't list the name of one of the governorates (Amanat Al Asimah), and the map wasn't showing two of the governorates (Amanat Al Asimah and Raymah). The reference I have is directly from the Ministry web site of Yemen. -- Rarelibra ( talk) 18:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I know exactly what happened. I updated the table on the main Yemen page at 2007-11-16T09:52:59 and then I preceded to copy that update to the Governorates of Yemen page at 2007-11-16T09:54:48. I didn't INTENTIONALLY mean to revert your edits. However, in the line of my defense - you have been INCONSISTENT with your edits, being that you updated the information for the table on the Governorates of Yemen page but you failed to carry those updates forward to the same table on the regular Yemen page under the 'Governorates and districts' section. So in the midst of my updating, it ended up carrying the information from the main article to the governorates article, which subsequently changed the 2004 information you mention. All you needed to do is to investigate as I did to find this - there was no need to not assume good faith and to get angry and make accusations in BOLD above. I appreciate your feedback at times, but this is too much, and I expect you to see that it was UNINTENTIONAL because of the two tables. Rarelibra ( talk) 14:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bogomolov, I updated the East-Hem 1200ad.jpg map, as per your suggestions. Thank you very much for those. You may still see some differences, which I explain on the talk page for the image. I haven't been able to devote much time to figuring out how to combine the maps as you described, but hopefully I'll get some time to do that this week. Thank you again for your help (it is now noted on the image's description page), and if you feel like doing the same with any of the other maps, please do! Respectfully, Thomas Lessman 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice find - and easy fix. I moved the page to Communes of Burkina Faso, relabeled the template, and the images within the article. Also added the reference you provided from the official Census report. The page was created based off of the information from Statoids (2004/2005) but seems it wasn't as accurate as the information you found. Rarelibra ( talk) 16:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the great map of Moscow Oblast! You wouldn't happen to have it in svg by any chance?— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 15:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I see everything ok. The FireFox problems were resolved? I can try again with Moscow Oblast now. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 17:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
To my idea it can be this way:
What you see? Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 18:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Several months ago (see Talk:Administrative divisions of Moscow Oblast) I've pointed your attention on [11] where on p.1 is written "территориальные единицы Московской области - сельские поселения", so rural settlements (not localities) are territorial units. Here are corrections to the administrative-territorial division law [12], I can cite:words "rural okrugs, as well urban localities (cities, work and dacha settlements) replace with word "territorial units". Stop. If we will subtract rural settlements - what would we get? Urban settlements territories, isn't it? From spacial point of view it is clear (we are talking about future map, I guess). And we have now in Dmitrovsky rayon 6 rural settlements and 5 urban, not 400 as you think. And what will be difference to the municipality map? Only the merging of several cities (I listed above) to the rayons. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 06:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Your interpretation is: every rural locality has to be territorial unit. The law text you citing tells us that territorial unit is possible be:
Future law text tells us [13]:
16) территориальная единица — это часть территории Московской области — населенный пункт (город районного подчинения, рабочий или дачный поселок городского типа, сельский населенный пункт) либо группа населенных пунктов, не являющихся в соответствии с настоящим Законом административно-территориальной единицей (сельское поселение, территория для развития города или поселка городского типа);
So is possible individual TU:
OR are possible "collective" units:
You can find in this text, that territory for development means rural localities territory over municipal rule of the city or urban-type settlement. That was the idea of the new law.
Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 07:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The territories for development is the future draft term, but the sense of this term is obvious: the rural parts of municipal urban settlements and okrugs. These "territories for development" are the territorial units as corresponding cities/urban-type settlements. So at administrative map we don't need both cities/urban-type settlements and "territories for development" (and rural settlements also), the urban okrugs and administrative rayons wold be present only. But administrative-territorial division map would reflect territorial units also, so all territorial units mentioned above (individual and "collective") have to be present. You are missing the task of this map if you want to ingnore "territories for development" - what would be shown at these empty spaces? Are these territories out of territorial division? They are territorial division units, you see. It does not mean that corresponding cities/urban-type settlements would not be shown - they are the territorial units also. So the main visible difference between the municipal and territorial division map would be separation cities/urban-type settlements proper from surrounding rural parts (if present) of municipal urban settlements and okrugs. The second difference will be merging of several urban okrugs to the administrative rayons as territorial units. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 07:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
About villages. Village proper is settlement in its boundaries, all lands inside are settlement lands category(земли поселений). Settlement lands category includes housing, industrial zones, transportation (roads), forested lads, waters, agriculture lands etc. It is not a village in a common sense. Very often farm for cattle, pigs, chicken etc. and harvester, lorries and tractors yard are out of the village boundaries as farm and machine yard are the parts of surrounding agriculture lands (not settlement lands category). So village in its boundaries can be wider (including forest, pond or lawns) or smaller (excluding cowsheds and machine yard).
Administrative-territorial UNITS map. (NOT Administrative-territorial DIVISION!)
Overall, this sounds good. That exactly describes the overview map I had in mind. The only thing I am not quite sure I understand is why you listed the cities under the oblast jurisdiction twice (items 2 and 6).— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Administrative-territorial division (NOT UNITS!) map.
The same plus:
Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Overall, apart from the point raised above, this sounds right.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The information you provided here is at risk of being reverted if you don't reveal the source of your data. What you wrote sounds important, so thanks for your cooperation. -- Poeticbent talk 19:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Absolute numbers with Polish language of education at schools(rayons rural schools):
Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 09:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"Государственный плановый комитет Литовской ССР. Министерство высшего и среднего специального образования Литовской ССР. АТЛАС ЛИТОВСКОЙ ССР. Главное управление геодезии и картографии при Совете Министров СССР. Москва 1981" Extraction city/towns data (polish schools) is more complex - data were shown with circles divided in sectors. This atlas has also ethnic distribution map, where for every homested goup less then 50 person, every village of population 50 to 200 were shown dominating ethnicity, for localities 200< share of ethnicities using pieslice method Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 15:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It has a sense in comparision to the data from [14], when in independent Lithuania number of Polish pupils doubled (russian schools were closed, no russian schools - no choise), but since 2001 declined again. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 16:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
apparently it's at 50°29'35"N, 100°10'15"E. Forgot to ask whether this one is Modot tolgoi or Baga hüi, though. Yaan ( talk) 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
|
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to invite you to the Mongolia work group of the WikiProject Central Asia. You're welcome to add that page to your watchlist and participate in discussions there. So far, many general discussions about topics related to Mongolia have been discussed on individual user's talk pages, away from the attention of a wider audience. I hope that a centralized talk page will make communication between all of us easier. If a question doesn't primarily concern just one specific user, then the work group is probably the right place to ask it. See you there! -- Latebird ( talk) 06:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Demographics of Mongolia now makes it seem as if birth rate equals death rate, no matter which statisticians you ask. But the population growth is not zero, so there I guess there may have been a small mix-up. Yaan ( talk) 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Rarelibra! It is not any personal attack, but resolving of my question can make your maps better, I hope. Your map of Yemen governorates shows common Oman/Yemen border with almost strait line, but at your Oman admin divisions and Districts of Oman maps this border line has very notable vertexes. It means no man's land in very politically drastic region of Dofar and/or territorial claims of one/both of these two countries? I'm very, very border sensitive, you see. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 06:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I would think you have time for something more productive than to attempt to compare two different maps. Honestly. I can understand if it was a map of the region and the borders didn't match - but please stop this kind of nonsensical comparison. It is like comparing and apple to an orange at this point. If you want to see my database, contact me offline and I'll send you a shapefile (or whatever you need). Rarelibra ( talk) 13:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't checked - but am I the only one that you are following and offering critque to for every map I produce? If so, then we have a problem. I never asked for cartography lessons - I studied under one of the authors of "Elements of Cartography". What I am saying is this - I shouldn't have to explain to you that in my database, the borders are correct. After having updated Oman, the border for Yemen is updated as well. But there is no need to go back and change the map of Yemen - as they are two separate maps. And it is unfair to compare such unless we are at a convention for cartographers or in an institutional environment of discussion. If I made a map of the region, it would be correct. So it is unfair to do what you are doing, my friend. So don't. Please. Rarelibra ( talk) 15:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Not emotional at all. Your example of comparing 50 to 51 is invalid because that is a count comparison. this map does not compare with this map, but they exist as two separate maps. Yet I don't see you offering up suggestions to those cartographers. this map shows a lake, where this one does not. Why isn't that an issue? They are two separate maps. Rarelibra ( talk) 16:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Bogomolov - you are incorrect. this map does not compare with this map ... boundaries are different (look at the corner of one versus the other). Period. Rarelibra ( talk) 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm done talking with you, Bogomolov. Rarelibra ( talk) 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Спасибо. Мы плохо искали, значит :)— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 18:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe these analogies are correct. The situation with Gruyère is not the same.
At any rate, you'd be better off voicing your opinion on the survey page. The whole point of that survey is to collect as many opinions as possible. Cheers,— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 15:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear AjaxSmack! In your last edit you erased Mongolian and Tibetan names explanation from article text. In your commentary you are declaring these names as foreign. It would be not any news for you that Tibetans are native population for the region and the same with Mongolians. So why you call them foreigners?. You know, I guess, that the most part of Tibetans and Mongolians live in China and Qinghai Lake region is one of the territories historically populated with these nations. In simple words, they are native. But I can note that Mongolian name with using Cyrillic (not traditional Mongol alphabet) is not correct - only this sentence (Cyrillic) is possible clame foreign. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 06:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I did remove the Mongolian and Tibetan names from the running text but they are still over in the Language Infobox on the right just below the Lake Infobox. You'll also note I added the Mongolian name to the box (thanks to User:Yaan for the image). It is not necessary to repeat the names in two areas of the article but the English historical name, Kokonor, is important to include. You are correct that I called these names foreign. I meant they are foreign to English speakers, the target audience of English Wikipedia, not to Qinghai natives. — AjaxSmack 07:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? don't say that! Yaan ( talk) 13:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
On your map of Mongolian sums, you don't have a label on one of the sums in Darkhan-Uul. Rarelibra ( talk) 18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Bogomolov - I made a new map for the Districts and LLGs of Papua New Guinea. If you have any feedback, I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks! Rarelibra ( talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello back.
Do you mean irrigated farming? Or just (plain) farming? Regards, Yaan ( talk) 15:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I will try to follow in your footsteps and see if I can get dms coordinates of placenames in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in the same way. -- Zlerman ( talk) 06:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Maplandia is also good for places ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with the change. Thanks for your hard work ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Now the only question left is what transliteration would be best for English Wikipedia? Recommendations? Renata ( talk) 05:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for adding the table, but I think there are two problems:
Btw. the strong decrease of "Chinese" and "Russian" from 1963 to 1969, and the corresponding rise of "others" also looks a bit strange - could they be connected?
Regards, Yaan ( talk) 15:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Reflecting back on the discussion we had about islands displayed in Google and Microsoft - it is now proven that those sources, in many cases, have highly INACCURATE data. One such example is where they show ownership of South Korean islands to North Korea. This was even challenged by the South Korean government, yet the data hasn't changed. Because the government website has those islands assigned as they are, I am more inclined to believe them than Google or Microsoft. Rarelibra ( talk) 13:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I’m sure you are remembering that not only Google Map and Microsoft Virtual Earth are depicting Treasury Islands, Shortland Islands and Fauro Island as Solomon property.
There are Australian sources:
Solomon Islans sources:
USA sources:
British sources:
U.N. sources:
I'm sure you can find a lot of sources, where Treasury Islands, Shortland Islands and Fauro Island are in Solomon Islands. The WikiPedia, as you know, is one of these sources.
As you know, dear RareLibra, we can find only ONE source where Treasury Islands, Shortland Islands and Fauro Island are shown as Papua-New Guinean. It is the Papua-New Guinea University site digital map. The rest of the maps (your and Aliasd) are this source replics.
Is it possible that all platoon is out of step?
Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 07:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you flying with Aeroflot? Yaan ( talk) 14:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Just so you are informed correctly, Bogomolov - you ARE allowed to edit your talk page. You can remove comments as you please, and this even includes warnings. It has history and precedent in Wikipedia. There is NO requirement that you MUST keep something on your own talk page - nor is it required to keep some 'shameful' other posts, such as warnings. So my conversation with you is over - and I am removing it. Please do not banter about this with me, thank you. If you continue to revert, I will report you for violating 3RR. Let's move on from here... and don't ever try to lecture me with a condescending tone of "dear" or otherwise. Rarelibra ( talk) 16:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Check out this article about how Google Earth has replaced it's current images of New Orleans with pre-Katrina images. Nice. So let the world think there is no destruction. Another reason why we cannot trust Google. If you want to respond ONLY to this, feel free (I'm through with the previous topic). Rarelibra ( talk) 19:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The topic of this discussion is not a Google Map or Virtual Earth cartographic quality. These sources are commercial and can not be more relevant than official or encyclopedic sources. You invited me to check your map Papua New Guinea LLGs.png. This kind of map checking is normal in professional map production. I've noticed inconcistency in ALL availiable for me on a moment on-line mapping sources (Google Map and Virtual Earth too) and your map.
Later (14, 15 of May) we had e-mail coversation out of WikiPedia. In this opinions exchange I've added more sources claiming Treasury Islands, Shortland Islands and Fauro Island are the Solomon Islands property. This kind of discussion is completely correct for the encyclopedic quality improving. As you, RareLibra, pointed on my map mistakes.
You, RareLibra, 2 months later posted this on my talkpage, where informed me about Google and MicroSoft online mapping sources innacuracy. This, in your opinion, changed the situation - Treasury Islands, Shortland Islands and Fauro Island now can be Papua New Giunean, not the Solomon Islands.
After this declaration I've posted 18 availiable sources of government(U.S. Dept of State, C.I.A, Australian Defence Ministery, British Amiralty etc.), international (U.N.), ecyclopedic (Britannica) and etc. Today I can add one more, the 19-th, source: U.N. Map of vicinity of Bougainville island. So the question of Treasury Islands, Shortland Islands and Fauro Island is not a question of political dispute, but the question of quality of map used for your map creation. And, of course, is not any question of Google Map quality.
My intention is to improve the WikiPedia maps quality, even if these maps were made by you. We (you or me) cannot decide these islands belonging. The relevant sources have to decide this. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 10:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Listed sources on WikiPedia Commons are divided into two groups:
Larger one depicts Treasury Islands, Shortland Islands and Fauro Island as Solomon Islands territory ("YEA"), on a left side.
Small one depicts Treasury Islands, Shortland Islands and Fauro Island as Papua New Guinea territory ("NAY"), on a right side.
This inconsitency in WikiPedia is a problem to resolve. Would you, RareLibra, make steps forward to resolve it?
Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 16:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
You are greatly mistaken, Bogomolov. Just so you are informed correctly, here you go:
If you read the policy HERE, you will see it states
Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred.
Important exceptions may include declined unblock requests (while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppetry notices, or for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates. In these cases it may be legitimate in order to keep a user from gaming the system. Such templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question, but to display important information about blocks and sockpuppetry.
As you can see, it IS NOT REQUIRED for a user to keep information on their talk page.
Also, please note the policy HERE, where it states
If a user removes a comment from their own talk page, (legitimate or not), it should remain removed. By removing the comment, the user has verified that they have read it. The comment is still in the page history, so it is not important to keep it visible just to prove that the user was told about it.
Users who repeatedly restore the same comment to another user's talk page may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule or harassing another user, regardless of if the talk page is for a registered or unregistered "anonymous" editor.
so as you can see, again, it is NOT REQUIRED for me to keep your comments on my talk page. In fact, I am warning you now - if you persist to put up stuff again, I will get an administrator involved to help clarify with you. I am DONE talking about island maps with you - I was trying to point out the GROSS INCONSISTENCIES in Google's data.
No more discussion with you, if you continue to act like you do. Please don't clutter my talk page with maps and such. Remember what it states above - you can violate the 3RR rule if you continue to restore that information on my talk page.
Rarelibra ( talk) 18:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm new to mongolian geographical names - I just see that Egiin Gol is with Gol and Üür gol is with gol... -- katpatuka ( talk) 14:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Several weeks ago I've got the complete set of Mongolian (2003 issue) topo maps (1:500 000, in Mongolian). I think it can be used as official(=relevant) source for the actual Mongolian toponyms. Romanization rules are: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mongolian), so Ih-Uul is not correct, but Ikh-Uul only. Bogomolov.PL ( talk)
I think you forgot to move the main page (or was this impossible)? I prefer "Ulaanbaatar", so I won't move this myself. Just let you know. Regards, Yaan ( talk) 15:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
If you are a
cartographer wouldn't you like to join
OpenStreetMap? Because of their
licensing policy there could be created nice looking maps without any copyright constraints. Especially the
cycle map creates beutiful overlayed topographic maps using NASA's SRTM data...
The main problem is that there are still huge amounts of white areas which need to be filled as well as country and province borders to be drawn! If you don't know OSM yet just drop an eye on it ;-) --
katpatuka (
talk)
08:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just recognized a problem with the length of the Egiin Gol river. Hovsgolian source (M.Nyamaa) says it is 535 km, statistical yearbook 2007, p. 75, says it is 475. My guess is that the statistical yearbook is probably the more respectable source, but in any way it might be better to check one or two more sources. Any idea where to look (except using a pair of compasses) ? Yaan ( talk) 11:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, may I ask what length exactly you measure? I assume it is the total length of a set of lines that roughly follow the river's centerline, but did you use straight lines or (non-linear) splines, and how exactly did you determine the location of the knots, i.e. where the individual lines or splines end? Regards, Yaan ( talk) 14:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mongolia Arhangay 2005 sum.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Latebird ( talk) 13:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! If you got a moment, would you be able to add anything to the discussion here? Thanks!— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 15:12, December 15, 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I have tried to make a map with district names on the basis of your map. It looks fine in Inkscape but in IExplorer I can only see black squares instead of text. Do you see the same? How can one fix it? Thanks. Ivan Volodin ( talk) 14:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just uploaded that map here. The image is a bit raw currently because the university computers have no useful image processing software, feel free to cut it a bit. Also the quality of the scan is not as good as I expected. So hopefully Berlin State Library will one day digitize their map collection. I think that the river that enters from the right at J-26 is Shishged gol, and that the one that joins Shishged gol from northern direction at J-23 is Bilin gol (B-e(or a)-l-i-? gh-o-o-l). But you might want to check with someone who can either read Mongolian or Chinese. Regards, Yaan ( talk) 14:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you checked the sources I provided? They formally became ZATOs on January 19, 2009.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 20:36, February 5, 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the article change on Latvia: "known" to "understand". My implication was that the majority of older Latvians understand (i.e. can speak and comprehend the Russian language.) To simply say they "know" Russian can seem to imply they merely are "aware" of the Russian language. It was just a grammatical change. Yes, of course most older ethnic Latvians were taught Russian and can speak and comprehend it. ExRat ( talk) 21:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help with the correct transliteration of the Confederation of Mongolian Trade Unions.-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 12:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Sprawa tkwi w czymś innym. Dwa lata temu był mały spór dotyczący zagłębia węglowego (m.in. Upper Silesian Coal Basin, ale też GOP i ROW). Spór toczył się zarówno na Wikipedii jak i poza nią. Ogólnie przyjęto, że Górnośląskie Zagłębie Węglowe to obszar metropolitalny i artykuł o zagłębiu (czyli o gospodarce) dotyczył obszaru metropolitalnego i stąd spór. Ktoś wpadł na bardzo interesujący pomysł, aby utworzyć osobne artykuły o zagłębiu i aglomeracjach. Tak też zrobiłem. Hasło Upper Silesian Coal Basin które już dawniej poprawiono jest o polsko-czeskim zagłębiu węglowym i istnieje osobny artykuł (utworzony wczoraj) o polsko-czeskim obszarze metropolitalnym (obejmującym obszar głównie zagłębia), ale o urbanistycznym tworze a nie przemysłowym. I byłoby wszystko dobrze jakby Polaron się nie mieszał w sprawy o których nie ma pojęcia. Jego małą wiedzę na temat tego obszaru metropolitalnego widać choćby w tej edycji gdzie np. część województwa małopolskiego (Lesser Poland Voivodeship) czyli np. Chrzanów czy Oświęcim podpiął pod szerszą definicję (tą 5 milionową) a nie konurbacji katowickiej (2,7 do 3 mln) oraz pisze że Racibórz tworzy 100,000 obszar metropolitalny. To tak jak napisać, że 10,000 miasteczko to metropolia ;p LUCPOL ( talk) 15:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe the current state of affairs (at least at the time that I wrote this) is now acceptable to both LUCPOL and myself so I don't forsee any further back and forth. Thank you for your efforts and it would probably be good if you can keep an eye on both of us to make sure that all the relevant articles maintain some level of reliability. I believe the main issue was identifying the immediate Katowice metropolitan area as the wider Silesian-Moravian region. In any case, I think it's all good now. Thanks. -- Polaron | Talk 19:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I understand the source I used for creating the article says there are some glaciers (or "mös gol", whatever it means) on that mountain, but I can't see any on google maps. Do you have any idea? Regards, Yaan ( talk) 11:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you please check the source you cite for the updated population numbers in Provinces of Uzbekistan? The tables in the cited reference end with page 175 ("Paid services rendered to the population") and there is no page 176 that you give as the source for population by province. Thank you. -- Zlerman ( talk) 11:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! Would you be able to amend the maps of Moscow Oblast in administrative divisions of Moscow Oblast to account for Losino-Petrovsky and Elektrogorsk becoming oblast-level cities effective April 5? Thanks!— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 16:25, April 15, 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think the number of 1024 km from Ider gol source to Lake Baikal is very plausible. If we accept that Ideriin gol is around 452 km long, then that would leave less than 600 km between lake Baikal and the confluence of Ideriin gol and Delgermurun. That just does not seem convincing when looking at a map.
Could the 1024 vs. 992 be just the result of two different measurements, with different maps, maybe? Yaan ( talk) 16:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Bogomolov, I appreciate your mapping work. However, it has a mistake. Orkhon province is painted in red, where Elbegdorj won according to your montsame source. In addition, in Ulaanbaatar city, Bagakhangai and Nalaikh are the least populated area and geographically very small but you show it very big. Can you edit this and reload your new map? Thanks. Compbok ( talk) 02:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, do you have a blank sum map and ulaanbaatar map? -- Chinneeb my talk 11:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Just giving you a heads up that I made most of the changes per your suggestions and responded to all of the map issues (those raised at the Talk page and the EB Talk page) at File talk:EasternBloc BorderChange38-48.svg. As an aside, I found many of your comments to be helpful, and the map making/editing process overall to be enjoyable. Mosedschurte ( talk) 22:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi again,
The list at aimags of Mongolia currently states that Bayan-Ulgii has 13 sums, while the 2006 statistical yearbook says it should be 14 (p.64). Just wanted to let you know. Yaan ( talk) 19:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding cited and sourced content to the Kazakhs article. Both your edits and the new content look great! — Kralizec! ( talk) 15:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you meant... Can you give me a link to the talk page? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 17:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks, good call. Don't know where my head was, I was only looking at transliteration based on the Kazakh name and even didn't think to check the books. What's the best course? A simple cut and paste from Bokei to Bukey, or a delete/move? Otebig ( talk) 20:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() | On June 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oyu Tolgoi mine, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this is interesting for you, but this article has a map with horoo boundaries on p.10. It seems to cover only a part of the area that your düüreg map covers, though. And I wonder if the population density numbers for the areas NW of the city center are correct. Yaan ( talk) 23:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, do you know the difference between 'horoo' and 'horoolol', and which of the two is synonymous with 'mikrorayon'? Yaan ( talk) 23:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, re. your question about a bus grid map, do you know where I could find one? Newer than this one? 07:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
If possible, please comment at Talk:Changkya Khutukhtu about the correct Mongolian equivalent of this title. I'm almost certain that it should be Жанжаа хутагт (Janjaa Hutagt), but I'd like additional input before adding that to the article.— Greg Pandatshang ( talk) 18:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding ( this edit); please note that {{ Coor dm}} is deprecated in the English Wikipedia; we use {{ Coord}}. Cheers, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
OK! I will stop - it was a mistake! I only wanted to knew - can I sawe all in English wiki. I undestud! Sorry! - Губин Михаил —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I have created some articles: Mongolian Wikipedia, Erdenet Mining Corporation. Please look at them! - Губин Михаил, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this article and say whether it should be renamed? Even though it's a very important subject currently there's little interest in it. Thank you. Nataev ( talk) 08:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
This article for factual correctness, comprehension and title (I suggested a more simpler one on the talk page). Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.170.84.179 ( talk) 15:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you have, or can you make, a blank map of File:Ulan Bator subdivisions.png, so that for elections we can add what sections were won by different candidats, similar to the one we have for the country File:Mongolia_blank.svg. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 05:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
you can do a favour for me and update this GDP curve till end of 2014: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transcaucasia_GDP_PPP_in_constant_prices_per_capita.png
It is exactly what I need :)
Useful were also af future estimation, e.g. with dotted lines. I can promise you: Highly likely high ranking NATO members would see your graph. Or tell me simply, where I can find out the data "GDP per capita (PPP, 2005 constant prices, US$)" that fit to your curve. The data I found are real prices in $ and do not fit to your graph.
Perhaps we can discuss it: falk.oberdorf@shape.nato.int
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flk-Brdrf ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Could you say something on this edit war? user Rajmaan is claiming Oirats Mongols are not Mongols and the "Mongol" identity was defined by the Qing. No one supported him, but he keeps posting his claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oirats#Edit_warring Thanks. 142.255.6.214 ( talk) 08:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Bogomolov.PL. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Bogomolov.PL. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Татьяна_Скоробогатова.jpg вот отсюда вырежьте!!!! Панн ( talk) 20:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Bogomolov.PL. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments; yeah, it's still very much a work in progress, I hadn't thought about them being visible on Commons. Hrm. If you have any sources for any of those, I'd love to have them. It's a bit hard to find sources and information about most of these changes. You can see that most of my "outstanding questions" (I won't even think about making it public til I have all those cleaned up, I am absolutely not going to publish an incomplete list) are things that I've seen mentioned, or saw some map of, but need more information on. Though, a quick comment: Yes, the USSR had all the Kuril Islands, but they had the northern ones from day one. Only the southern ones were annexed [and remain disputed] in 1945. From what I understand. :) Also, if you had some source explaining the status of Bukhara and Khorezm, that would be awesome; all I've been able to find is they were PSRs, then SSRs, but never 'formally' made union republics, which would have involved their addition to the constitution... I think? Thanks! -- Golbez ( talk) 01:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
WP:NATIONALIST bickering on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyrgyz Confederation. Thank you.
—DIYeditor (
talk)
08:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
После блокировки юзера стоило бы и повторно номинировать статью Kyrgyz Khanate на удаление, если это разрешено (уж извините, в этом я чуток профан). Обратите внимание, после удаления Kyrgyz Confederation, заблоченный банально перекинул всё то что было на той странице и чуток поигрался с датами, то есть это буквально еле выдерживающая критику статья, которая основывается на слове "Khanate" из энциклопедии по христианству, а так, благодарю Вас за такую тяжёлую проделанную работу. Kazman322 ( talk) 18:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Template:Tashkent Labelled Map has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
23:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)