User talk:LokiiT

Welcome!

Hello, LokiiT, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Chechnya

I apologize for any misunderstanding, it's just that according to a source already provided, http://www.boyntonweb.net/Policy/Chechnya2.htm, the new numbers you put down were different. This source claims atleast 6000 were killed, yet you put 5,500, and the previous information had over 7000. Please explain. Guldenat (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. My sincere apologies for the misunderstanding and hindering your efforts. Cheers. Guldenat (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

Sorry, I've meant not 'sourced information' but 'sources'. This still has to be explained (at the talk, preferably). Alæxis_¿question? 05:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if a link is broken it doesn't mean that the reference has to be removed altogether. Often it's possible to find an archived page in the Internet Archive. Alæxis_¿question? 15:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message

WP:3RR means you're not allowed to do more than 3 reverts in one day or you will be blocked. You've done that now but I won't report you since you're not aware of the rule. You should undo your last revert or a moderator can still block you. If you really think the sources are bad open a discussion about it on the talk page. - Pieter_v (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 South Ossetia War

Please be sure to use a meaningful edit summary with each edit - especially in a contentious article as this. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Ossetian War 2008 - Map

Hi, I've changed the map after your feedback. Maybe you could have a look on it and tell me whether it's better now or not? Thanks -- DanteRay (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No official sources please

On August 16, The general staff of Moscow confirmed that Russia had occupied Poti, as well as military bases in Gori and Senaki. It stated that they were there to "defuse an enormous arsenal of weapons and military hardware which have been discovered in the vicinity of Gori and Senaki without any guard whatsoever."

The Russian Government cannot confirm anything; nor can the Georgian Government: they are the interested parties, and we are not here to reprint their public statements. I am leaving this shortly; but if I find this when I return, I will tag it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's just repeating what the BBC and Guardian already reported. The way it was worded made it sound like the Russians were denying it, when in fact they "made no secret" of it and confirmed it themselves. What wikipedia policy says no official sources are allowed? The article would be useless without statements such as the one above, it would be impossible to get a scope on what was happening if we only used reporter eye witnesses.. WP:V requires verifiability, not truth. Government statements are what they are, they can't be censored or ignored because you personally don't like them. LokiiT (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this has been answered. Such statements are primary sources, and secondary sources are preferred. But policies are outer bounds; well-written articles do not include everything that policy can be stretched to permit.

If the wording suggested that the Russians denied something they admitted, the honest solution would be to reword, not add Russian statements . If this continues, I will request mediation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

revert of Jumber on 2008 South Ossetia war

You just edited 2008 South Ossetia war stating "revert edits by Jumber due to massive WP:OR and altering of material to fit a pov. Jumber, please DO NOT add unsourced information to this page, it will be reverted." Could you tell me to which version you did revert? From your statement I expected: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=237131233&oldid=237123449 to be empty. Could you please clarify? -- JanCK (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC) .[reply]

It was mostly a revert of this edit, but I had to copy/paste everything from an earlier version due to edit conflicts so technically it wasn't a revert and I might have missed some stuff. LokiiT (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

k. just one more thing. I don't want to take too much time, but: First you posted this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=237041506&oldid=237023764 . It seems to me that's the one you meant to post ... though you changed the link afterwards. .. anyway. Have a nice day. -- JanCK (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the first link was the wrong diff, I corrected myself. LokiiT (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[1] FYI, his tag team buddy never left, he created a new account, User:Grey_Fox-9589.--Miyokan (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hah, I had my suspicions. LokiiT (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Litvinenko/Vladimir Putin

As an editor who was involved in discussion on the Litvinenko article, in relations to claims he made of paedophilia, I just wanted to bring you up to speed with this development. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

Hi, just want to inform you that I have added this quote in your userpage. It is an interesting quote, and frankly speaking I like it very much. I believe your analysis of Wikipedia is quite appropriate. It is your user page, if you don't like it, feel free to remove it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't mind. LokiiT (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 South Ossetia war title vote

Take a look: there is a vote up again at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war#Article name vote. Offliner (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Familiar user?

Hey LT, I won't mention names or anything, but I am almost certain you have dealt in the past with User:HanzoHattori and his sockpuppets (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori). Whilst he is banned, his use of sockpuppets to edit Chechnya-related articles is almost guerilla like. Can you see any similarities in the editing style between Hanzo and his socks, and another editor who has recently joined us? I believe there is, but someone who is familiar with Hanzo's editing would be better placed to see any links, which could then be used to ask for CU. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I remember that guy, but aside from being very outspoken and sarcastic in conversation, I don't really recall anything specific about his editing style. It's likely that if he is back to editing under a new name, he'd probably try to take on a different personality to not make it so obvious. I do think this new user is acting suspicious though. It's unlikely that that's his first account, it seems like he's playing ignorant to avoid wiki policy. LokiiT (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can kinda forget about it being him, given some recent edits. :) --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologies

Sorry. I misread the source and thought it said that Russia was a middle power. However, the past discussion was talking about a different source, not the one I was trying to use. Deavenger (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, it's all good. I was just reading the discussion from about a year ago and I realized that despite that person being correct, it was still listed along with that one source. LokiiT (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing survey

Hi LokiiT. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic current events articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed ithat you have been a key contributor at 2008 South Ossetia war. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below. An explanation of my project is included with the survey.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kLMxj8dkk_2bls7yCBmNV7bg_3d_3d Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian population

Thanks for updating Russian population in List of countries by population--Youssef (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No threats, please

You reverted my edit in Historical revisionism (negationism) by comment [2] "the OSCE story has nothing to do with the historic truth commission, and restoring npov edits, please be careful with the revert button". Please, do not make threats. I have no choice, but revert your edit for two reasons: a) Your OSCE russian delegation -comments are more news flash than improvement of the article b) Your edit is not NPOV, as you promote this pro-Kremlin project (glorify Stalin, deny the occupation of the Baltic states etc.) and those views are not very wide supported outside Russia (I wonder why...). I suggest you either merge your edits to article Historical Truth Commission, start new article or write to Wikinews. Peltimikko (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a threat, I'm sorry it came off that way. I was just asking you to be careful not to revert entire edits when you only mean to change a few parts, because you ended up undoing some npov word changes and fixes to the paragraph that was already on the page. Also I most certainly did not glorify Stalin or deny the occupation of the Baltic states, that accusation is entirely unfounded and I have no idea what would make you come to that conclusion. Take a look at this carefully, the top paragraph changes. How on Earth does that glorify Stalin or deny the occupation of the Baltic states? That's utter nonsense. Please see the talk page of the article and discuss it further there.LokiiT (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chechnya article

Thanks for the warning about 3RR, I was actually unaware of that rule and I appreciate the heads-up. :-)

That being said, your statement that Russia has withdrawn its military from Chechnya is incorrect. There have been numerous reports of Russian Federal forces being involved in fighting the continuing conflict in Chechnya - although I hate to use Kavkazcenter as a source due to their obvious bias, there's been enough reports of federal Spetsnaz involvement there that its obvious. Can we come to an agreement regarding Chechnya's status that falls somewhere between "federal subject of Russia" and "disputed territory," or do we need to talk to an admin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.48.72 (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't backed your claims up with any sources and I find them highly dubious. Aside from some sporadic violence (ie. car bombs), I have heard no recent reports of a renew in fighting since Russia ended its anti-terror campaign last April and withdrew its military forces. Moreover, the leader of the separatist government has just called for a halt to armed resistance, and what few Chechen militants still exist do not occupy a single populated area of Chechnya, and haven't for quite some time. All of this information is sourced in the Chechnya and Second Chechen war articles, which is why it's in the lead. Since you seem to be new here, please take a look at WP:Verifiability and WP:Sources. And you're right to be cautious in using a source such as Kavakazcenter. This would be akin to using a Taliban run website for status updates on the current war in Afghanistan. LokiiT (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think that Kavkazcenter is significantly less reliable than official sources, which have repeatedly claimed that the Mujaheddin have been eliminated. Kadyrov claimed on 11 July that 28 militants had been killed, months after the official ending of the "counter-terrorist operation." Clearly, they're biased too. I think that accepting that the Second Chechen War is over is about as ridiculous as accepting the official statements about how many times they've killed Dokka Umarov. In addition, Zakayev is not the "leader of the seperatist government." He declared himself such from the comfort of London, but the actual mujaheddin forces in Chechnya have been led by Dokka Umarov since the death of Abdul Sadulayev. 174.99.48.72 (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you haven't provided any sources yet. I also think not accepting that the war is over after the once leveled cities have been rebuilt, all populated areas are under Moscow's control and the military has been withdrawn is pretty ridiculous. It's over, and we should all be thankful for that. LokiiT (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's some sources for you.

http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2009/07/26/10830.shtml http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2009/07/29/10834.shtml http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2009/07/29/10835.shtml

I would be a lot more comfortable with the current situation if the people in charge of the cities weren't the ones who leveled them in the first place. I don't recall the CRI using ballistic missiles against hospitals.

I'm not anti-Russian.174.99.48.72 (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't reliable sources. They actually refer to Russian forces as "infidels", and Kaydrov as "the ringleader". It almost seems satirical. I've already directed you to WP:SOURCES that covers that issue. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in natureLokiiT (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian media is also not reliable. How many times has Umarov been killed now, according to them? Combatants in the war can't be considered acccurate. 174.99.48.72 (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is irrelevant and of no interest to me. If you have a problem with the sources used in any of the articles in question (most of which are western sources in any case), take it to the reliable sources noticeboard, rather than my talk page. This conversation is over. Any further comments will be promptly deleted. LokiiT (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gulag System, not just prison camps

I am questioning your comment: "There was nothing genocidal about the gulag" [3]. Gulags were not just prison camps - it was a system of slavery job and ideology brain wash. Stalin used gulags to create new Soviet-person, instead of many nationalities inside Soviet Russia. Gulag was a tool of the Communist regime, and so it is responsible millions of death inside the Soviet Union – it not just "happened". Peltimikko (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what they were and I'm not defending them. Genocide implies a systematic extermination in whole or in part of a specific ethnic, national or religious group. This does not describe the gulag. We must be careful in what we label as "genocide". Too many people use the term improperly and without justification. LokiiT (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am careful in this, but number of death is so huge, that refers to deliberated massmurdering, genocide. Furthermore, Nazi Germany used similar method, slavery job till starvation, and it is considered as a part of the Holocaust, genocide. Gulags were no extermination camps, but the system in its entirety was genocidal (and it was wrong that its main architects got away, and even one them was voted the third most notable personality in Russian history). If you disagree with this definition – there are in more in the Genocide definitions – than by all means remove category tag again, and this discussion can continue in the article's talk page. Peltimikko (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what the word genocide means. It's not a matter of numbers, it's a matter of intent. No country and no international body recognizes the deaths caused by the gulag as a genocide. It's such a joke that people are now going back through history and applying the word genocide to every single incident where people were killed and treated inhumanely. It's becoming just another meaningless rhetorical label because of people like you who just have an axe to grind. LokiiT (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the definition of Genocide is not easy. The Genocide Convention was held after the WWII. The Communist genocide talk page have two excellent points by user PBS. Peltimikko (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know there are people who are continually trying to expand the definition, but in my opinion these people are reshaping and destroying history for an agenda driven purpose. Regarding the gulag itself, can you please show me one country or one international body that considers it a genocide? The suggestion is absurd. People weren't sent to the gulag to die, the mortality rates were relatively low except for the famines during WWII. People weren't rounded up and executed based on their religion or race. To apply the word genocide to the gulag is to completely destroy all meaning of the word. LokiiT (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Stalinism

Please don't make false accusations of revert warring.radek (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make false accusations of false accusations. You made multiple full and partial reverts within a few hours on that article rather than discussing it and waiting for the editor you were reverting to reply. LokiiT (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case

LokiiT, have you seen this case [4]? It seems that ArbCom is looking at coordinated edit warring by a secret mailing list, and your edits sure seem to have been targeted by a few guys from it. Just in case you wanted to put in your words... Anti-Nationalist (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've seen it, and this incident just rebuffs my cynicism on the whole wiki project that's summed up on my user page. But I don't see fit to involve myself in such drama. There's nothing of value I can really add, I can't think of any recent dispute where I was being targeted by multiple members of this alleged tag team, aside from the recent dispute in neo-Stalinism which you already mentioned. LokiiT (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, I think I may just go through my edit history to be sure. LokiiT (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing of Reuters content

You have failed to explain why Russia handing over passports to a majority of south ossetians is the same as South Ossetia receiving a majority of its budget from Russia. Please restore the Reuters content you deleted. --Xeeron (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain it. Please see this comment. Like I said, if you feel it necessary to reinsert some details I won't object to it. LokiiT (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I'll do it. LokiiT (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gazprom

Do you have an opinion of the article Gazprom? I've been trying to do major improvements on it for a while, but each time I ask for outside opinion on the talk page or at WP:RUSSIA, no one replies. I think the main problem is that the history chapter is messy. Obsolete / irrelevant stuff should be removed. Perhaps materials on gas price disputes with Ukraine and Belarus should be moved to a separate chapter called "Pricing" (which I will create shortly; it will discuss material such as the diffence between domestic and intra-CIS gas prices and world market prices, as well as price reform efforts by the Russian government.) Basically, I'd like the article to focus more on the present and less on the history and chronology of events. For example, the info about being given export monopoly should be moved from the history chapter to a separate chapter "exports" and stated as a fact instead of as a chronology item. Does this make sense to you? Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the article? Offliner (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also probably going to edit other articles related to Russian energy sector soon as well. I'm thinking of creating Gas industry of Russia, but perhaps this would overlap too much with Gazprom? Also, about the Russia-Ukraine gas price dispute: everyone seems to assume that Russia used gas as a political weapon (whatever that means), but I recently came across a comprehensive article by big-name researchers of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, which comes to the clear conclusion that this was not the case. I will probably add some info to Russia-Ukraine gas dispute of 2009 soon. What do you think? Offliner (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gazprom article isn't bad overall in its current form. The bulk of the article sans the History section is well written and well sourced. But I agree with you on the History section, the quality seems to take a nosedive there. It's all over the place and hard to follow, and it just seems too bloated and unorganized. The first half of it is almost entirely unsourced up to and including the 1993-1997 section as well. Do you have any idea where that info came from? That would be one of my main concerns for improving the article since it takes up such a huge chunk of space, and a lot of that info does seem worth keeping. But I would say get rid of all those subsections in the 2005-2006 section completely and either incorporate the info into the main timeperiod's subsection, put it in a better spot in the article or delete it if it's not important enough.

Regarding the disputes, it's indeed confusing and ugly the way they're are all split up like that so I like your idea of moving them to a new section specific to pricing. One idea if you want to cut down on the size is to just mention them all (or the situation of these ongoing disputes in general) in one or two summary paragraph, rather than each individual dispute being given its own section with a bunch of details, and just direct to the main articles via wikilinks for those who are interested in the details.

As for a Gas industry of Russia article, well there's the Petroleum industry in Russia article which is very undeveloped. Maybe that article could have separate sections for the gas and oil industries if there's not enough relevant content on gas alone to warrant its own article.

If there's anything you can think of that would be good in chart form, let me know. I made a few gas industry related charts some months ago[5][6], though they're not Gazprom specific.

Also, I just skimmed through that Oxford paper and it looks like it could add some real value to that dispute's article, which is mostly based on non-academic media sources. I'll have to read the whole thing when I have more time (bit of a busy weekend) and see how to make good use of it. That article needs some cleaning up in general.LokiiT (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great and helpful answer. I agree with you about Gazprom, and I will working on it to improve these issues in the near future. About gas industry, I think I will first add material to Petroleum industry in Russia and then split it off to a separate article if there is enough material. Yes, I think it would be great to have charts in Gazprom, and I will have to think which figure would be most useful to have in chart form, and I will come back to you after I've thought it over. Thanks for the offer. By the way, I think we desperately need a map of Gazprom's production fields in Russia (especially those in Yamalo-Nenets okrug, since they are discussed in text in various articles) -- do you know what would be the best way to create such maps? I don't think there are any in public domain. Page 3 of [7] is an example of what I mean. Offliner (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm not really sure how to make maps like that, but I can try and see if I can come up with a hand-made copy in photoshop (no promises though). I agree that such a map would be of good use. I'm assuming you've already looked in Commons? I saw a few maps showing pipelines there, but perhaps not specifically what you need. LokiiT (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this: European dependence on Russian energy? It was created by a POV pusher[8]. Offliner (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a POV fork of Energy policy of the European Union. The issue of European dependency on Russian energy could easily be summed up in a subsection of that article without being given undue weight. LokiiT (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. User:Gazpr ("Gaz PR"?) appears to be an agenda-based account. A question: do you think material about the gas industry should go to Petroleum industry in Russia? (Some might claim that petroleum means only oil.) Also, should it be moved to Petroleum industry of Russia (this title sounds better)? Offliner (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah good point, a gas section might be deemed somewhat off topic in the petro article. A new article for gas couldn't hurt. You could even rename the petro industry of Russia article to Energy Industry of Russia and develop them both under that name, then split them up like suggested earlier if there's enough content. But theoretically there should be enough content for two different articles, so its up to you. Also I agree that "of" sounds better than "in".

By the way I've started to do some restructuring of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute article. If you have any suggestions I'd like to hear 'em.LokiiT (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]