Talk:Russian Wikipedia

message: There is a broken link underneath. Википедия:Посольство.
--Bakhteiarov 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: If the Russian Wikipedia surpasses the Swedish one (and becomes the 10th largest), as will likely happen in about a week, will it replace the Swedish on the title page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostja (talk • contribs) 19:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: If find these edits very peculiar. The user somehow did not notice that the whole article does not have external sources and is filled with questionable statements, but deleted very well known facts: (1) ru_wiki arbitration committee blocks users for their comments in external blogs; (2) ru_wiki checkusers disclose private information of the users. I do not buy the explanation of the user who censored this article ("Policies:  non-notable, no non-wiki sources") because this same explanation can be used to delete pretty much everything in the article. SA ru (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cencorship? 

message: * [Remove]  This is in the regular encyclopedia namespace.  These items should only be included if they are noteable.  Sources (such as good newspaper articles) should be added if this information should remain.  --→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 10:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third party comments go here 

message: If somebody uninvolved still feels that it's necessary to keep this can of worms open, I propose the following edit:
The arbitration committee has on several occasions blocked users for behavior outside Wikipedia such as posting abusive comments about sysops on other sites:ru:Википедия:Заявки на арбитраж/О попрании участниками проекта Традиция чести и достоинства участников Википедии. Such blocks have proven to be quite controversial, and as a result, a major discussion to establish whether a user can be blocked for external behavior took place in February 2010.Википедия:Опросы/Блокировки за действия на внешних ресурсах.--Victoria (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These comments were not necessarily abusive. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 23:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I oppose. Still no proof that those facts are notable. vvvt 10:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Here is my proposal:
Do not include paras in question. Remove all wiki-sourced statements (4 out of 6 sources). SkyBonTalk/Contributions 16:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 2 

message: As of March 1th. 2011, it has surpassed Portuguese and Dutch Wikipedias. It must be written in this article--Noder4 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Already mentioned since February 25th. --illythr (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: It has surpassed Portuguese and Dutch Wikipedias

message: --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Million pages 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Russian Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100208020858/http://lenta.ru/news2/2007/09/04/wikipedia/index.htm to http://www.lenta.ru/news2/2007/09/04/wikipedia/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Википедию. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Википедию" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 1) Putin mistakenly talked "alternative" — Western press wrote. Putin's secretary Peskov the next day disproved — Western press didn't write. 2) Russian press mistakenly said "abandoned" — Western press wrote. Russian ministry the next day disproved — Western press didn't write. RESULT: English Wikipedia collects 2 mistakes. When I try to fix it —  returns the mistakes on his good faith. --ssr (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You need a reliable source to say The Guardian and The Times made a mistake. You did not provide one. Philip Cross (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not them, but their Russian sources. Them did not disprove the next day. All available sources are in Russian—that's what I'm talking about. E. g. here is TASS on 2nd case: https://tass.ru/obschestvo/8464579 The 1st case is aged, needs more search. --ssr (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, here is the 1st case from RIA Novosti: https://ria.ru/20191108/1560715571.html why don't you remove the mistakes you entered in Wikipedia twice? --ssr (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

text:  I added such a source. I ask you to smooth the expressions, my English is not native.·Carn·!? 11:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  As for now, phrase "Vladimir Putin called for a government-run alternative to Wikipedia" is a falsehood, and all of the paragraph has nothing to do with title "Troubles with the government of Russian Wikipedia". All of these were/are blatantly failed journalism and Wikipedia at this point is spreading that (intended to be the opposite). --ssr (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored removed passage 

message: This information about "edit warring" in the Russian Wikipedia will be useful? This information is available in ruwiki. This "edits warring" is due to disagreements over the different beliefs of the participants. By beliefs in religion, politics, history, sexual orientation, and so on. From what the participants are the constant requests to administrators, and administrators are constantly putting the protection on the article. For example, participants have disagreements during armed conflicts in the post-Soviet space, and Wikipedia users are representatives of warring nations (Armenians and Azerbaijanis during conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh are a vivid example). AntonBanderos (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing special about edit-warring in the Russian Wikipedia which would not apply to other projects (including the English Wikipedia).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, a year ago, there was a trial about 12 editors. where one person with 12 own accounts made offensive edits in articles about the opposition, but made a positive statement in articles about russian officials. After that, 12 accounts were blocked. And this case was published in some Russian media, for example in Lenta.ru. AntonBanderos (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring in Russian Wikipedia 

message: Contents describes 900,000 pages, now 1,800,000.Xx236 (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  As of 1 June 2012 

message: https://www.npr.org/2022/04/01/1090279187/russia-wikipedia-fine?t=1649322090690 Xx236 (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent source 

message: Interesting to find a report of the Russian Army using Wikipedia to learn how to use their weapons. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia for war 

message: Is there any reason to believe that the judgement has any possibility of being enforced? Has the Foundation responded in any way? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not think they are going to pay, which makes perfect sense to me. Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought not, but it would be good to add a (cited) statement to that effect. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia Foundation "fined two million roubles" 

message: The Signpost has coverage of a new fork of ruwiki here. So far, I can't see any coverage of it on WP:RS, but when they do, this should be covered in a "forks" subsection in this article, along with the existing mention of Runiversalis. — The Anome (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is quite some coverage in reliable sources, though, as far as I see, exclusively in Russian. However, I am too involved with the topic, someone else must write the story. Ymblanter (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forks 

message: Russian Wikipedia pages are patrolled.
Википедия:Проверка статей/Пояснение для читателей
Википедия:Проверка статей/Пояснение для читателей Wisdood (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  stable version pages