User talk:LokiiT

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[1][2], 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 [3] 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[4]. 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]

You are doing a great job at 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute. It's important that such articles are updated and rewritten when new academic sources become available. Personally I'm probably going to work on Russia-Belarus dispute articles in the near future if I have time. I'm probably going to create 2004 Belarus-Russia gas dispute because we don't seem to have an article on that yet, and try to get it DYKed. Offliner (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent addition to Nabucco

Do you think this wording is neutral? Why don't we use similar wording in Nord Stream? "Another way to prevent the project from completion is to make claims about environmental impact..." I'm sure that would be reverted on neutrality grounds. Offliner (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bias is pretty blatant. No surprise that Jamestown is used as a source. That addition doesn't even have any context. It's written as if there's prior mention of the need to prevent some other project from being completed, but there's not. LokiiT (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights

Can you take a look at this edit? It introduces misleading wording: the source does not say that 17% is "little"; the word "only" just refers to the difference between the two figures. I also do not like the first sentence in "job discrimination". It says "A number Russian activists continue to allege..." But now we have very clear statistics of this, so we shouldn't use such wording (it's not just activists who say there is discrimination, and it's not "an allegation".) I've never heard survey results being characterized as "allegations." Offliner (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I just copy/pasted a bunch of stuff from that source about discrimination against Russians in vein because I didn't realize that you had already added it to the article. Since you already went through the source and read everything, it's obvious that the usage of the word "only" is misleading. It's just cherry picked info taken out of context. "Only 17%....compared to 4% in Lithuania and 5% in Latvia.." And yes, I agree that the word "alleged" doesn't fit since there is concrete proof. That's like saying there's "alleged" discrimination against Roma in Europe. LokiiT (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail

Hi there LokiiT, you have email. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 00:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biting Noobs.

Please point out where I bit a newbie. The first Npov warning in opn the top of the page, I then gave a lvl 2 warning, discussed not only on the talkpage but also on the user talk page. After his fourth revert I warned him for 3rr. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also left the damned welcome template too. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always felt that threatening newcomers with blocks when they clearly don't know the policies (and only minutes after they've been linked to them) is never helpful, lest the intention is to intimidate and/or drive them away. However it's possible that I've misread the situation, and if that's the case I do apologize. Also, out of curiosity, why do you refer to a user named victimswife as a he?LokiiT (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I speedy-deleted Terrorism by Caucasus Extremists. I have no problem with an article on the general topic, but this title is itself POV, and there was not really any content worth saving (the last version I deleted was only one sentence). Better to start over with an NPOV title. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article can easily be renamed to something more suitable like Terrorism in the Northern Caucasus, which I'm surprised there's no article for in the first place. That's usually an easier solution than going through the hoops of deleting it when it's not an obvious hoax/spam/duplicate article.LokiiT (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see you've already deleted it. I guess admins don't have such hoops to go through. LokiiT (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Habit mostly, but for the purposes of the encyclopedia our genders don't really matter. In this case though I just fall back into habit. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, was just wondering. LokiiT (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you edited me and i edited you :-))

Insufficient (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah a bit of an overlap there, sorry :) LokiiT (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No No No, it's OK. i didn't mean you did something wrong :-) Insufficient (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think i did some mistakes in my editing of Dokka_Umarov article.

in some places with a ref tag, i remove the ref tag because it had just a name, and i understand(now) that it's not a mistake, but the same ref tag may reffer to a couple of places in the article. sorry for that Insufficient (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Arbcom evidence

Hi there, Biophys has posted an amount of evidence at Arbcom, most of which has absolutely nothing to do with the scope of the case, but I believe that as you are mentioned there, you should probably address accusations which have been made against you. The evidence can be seen at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Biophys. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 12:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2008 South Ossetia War title

I would like to know your opinion concerning a proposal I made, which I think represents a decent compromise.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your comments were addressed on the talk page and I was hoping you could offer your opinion specifically on whether you think the proposed compromise title is an acceptable alternative.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yanukovych and the wreath

Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Also, Pravda isn't a reliable source. LokiiT (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You called it non-notable!? How is that not notable when it is notable? That fact stirred precedents for censorship in the country. It is mentioned outside of what you referred to as Pravda. Another question. What is in your definition of a reliable source? Google books? BBC? Why can't Ukrainian Pravda be as reliable as BBC? What are the factors that deny it to be nominated as reliable? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded my response. Check the discussion page again, and keep the discussion there please. LokiiT (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LokiiT. You have new messages at Aleksandr Grigoryev's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Coalition military casualties in afghanistan by month

Hi, LokiiT. I think you update this table.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coalition_military_casualties_in_afghanistan_by_month.PNG

Now its last edit as June 3.While today is July 7.

So please update that page.

In June 102 NATO soldiers killed making worst month for NATO in this 9 years war.