LokiiT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.82.197 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reminder. LokiiT (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

neutral notification Collect (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

First off, this link is just another blog from some Russian propagandist who is trying to libel Goble (reading the comments it seems other readers find this guy a joke). Second, KyivPost cited Goble and reported the events (they are a reliable source) and EurasiaReview is another reliable source. Also, what bias of mine?--Львівське (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's the thing, you say he's some liar simply because he honest about Russia...so you try to say he, an expert in the field, is an unreliable source? That he wrote about it in his blog is neither here nor there when he also did the same for the Kyiv Post, Eurasia Review, and Georgian Daily. These are reliable news outlets.--Львівське (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's a news report, not everything has to be open to peer review. My credibility shouldn't be coming into question here, Goble is an expert and well respected professional in this field, who wrote this report. End of story. Whether you you think he has some "Russophobe" conspiracy going on is your own thing.--Львівське (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

By that same logic, anyone who calls George Bush an idiot must be anti-American; Goble is writing on what's going on in Russia and Moscow apologists do what they always do and just call the source of criticism "Russophobia"--Львівське (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Take a deep breath.--Львівське (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is no point arguing with you, you're clearly entrenched in this anti-Russia CIA conspiracy where academics make up lies on small news outlets in order to stir up god knows what you believe. You're making unfounded claims about Goble, ironically, using a blog to support your position. I can't go any further with this. The KP and ER are reliable sources, Goble is a respected expert in the field...the citations are very much RS in this regard. I don't see the gripe outside of conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo.--Львівське (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's not edit warring if I'm restoring deleted sources and/or adding more sources (re: WP:PROVEIT). The only one being disruptive here is you, nice try.--Львівське (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

See WP:AN3#User:Lvivske reported by User:LokiiT (Result: ). I have suggested the possibility that both parties should be blocked. You are welcome to add your own comment. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I was just finishing up my response. LokiiT (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Could you please update the File:Russian economy since fall of Soviet Union.PNG? That would be really nice. GreyHood ^Talk 23:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't think official figures have been released yet for the fourth quarter of 2010. LokiiT (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, that's actually one of the few figures which does it right (a lot of them don't adjust for inflation or ignore cost of living adjustments or fudge other aspect or outright have no clue of differences between nominal and real GDP). Good job LokiiT, it's weird to expect it to be on the latest up to date basis. Volunteer Marek  02:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, all in due time then... I just have thought that some of those figures announced in the last month by various Russian officials may be used, but now I see that there is no GDP update on the Rosstat site yet. They only have published the data about Russian industry. Btw, there is no article called Industry of Russia, and I think about starting it some time later, so if you are still interested in creating more informational graphics, the graph showing the history of Russia's industrial growth would be most appreciated. GreyHood ^Talk 14:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sure, if you can help me with finding some reliable sources with historic data. LokiiT (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The historical per year percentage up to 2009 may be found here, the first line. For 2009-2010 comparison the newest report would do, it shows 8,2% growth. GreyHood ^Talk 21:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here ya go. Let me know if you see any improvements to be made.LokiiT (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good one for the beginning. Is it possible to paint, say, red color an area between the null line and the curve below it, and blue (or green) an area between the null line and the curve above it? GreyHood ^Talk 01:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just remembered there's a better way to do graphs that range from negative to positive. What about these? Colors can be changed easily. Personally I just like it as a solid color. Simple and gets the point across. LokiiT (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I like the first variant best of all. It creates a better impression of growth, since, for example, the Russian industry was growing already from the beginning of 2010 or even earlier, and when there is a greenish color there, that's better than red. Could you upload the first one or all of these versions to Commons? Thank you in advance. GreyHood ^Talk 15:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Done. same link as before. LokiiT (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again. For now I've inserted it into the Economy of Russia#Industry, hope the specific article about the Russian industry to be created soon. GreyHood ^Talk 20:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Once that article gets started I'll see if there's anything else I might be able to contribute. LokiiT (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your with the charts, LokiiT. I think eventually we are going to need a separate GDP growth graph for different industries. Also, a chart about total production of "passenger motor cars"[5] could be nice to include in User:Nanobear/Automotive industry of Russia. Btw, which program are you using to create the charts? Nanobear (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I use Microsoft Excel 2007 and sometimes paint and photoshop for touch ups. Regarding automotive production, that would be simple enough. I could also include other types than just cars in the same graph if you want. I think it's interesting how motorcycle production has dropped to almost nothing. Wonder why. LokiiT (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Currently there is much work going on with the article Renewable energy in Russia. I've inserted one of your graphs there. Could you update it as well, please? Ideally, there should be some graph representing all types of renewable energy in Russia, not only hydropower, but three-sector graph is enough for now. GreyHood ^Talk 01:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here is an iteresting general collection of graphics about Russian economy and demographics in the last 20 years. It's in Russian language and with some "political" comments, but the information is based mostly on the Rosstat data. I believe many such graphics could be used for the articles related to Russian economy. GreyHood ^Talk 20:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Rosstat has released the official data for the 2010 GDP. GreyHood ^Talk 02:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'll work on that a bit later. I also updated the electricity production graph per your request. LokiiT (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the update. GreyHood ^Talk 19:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem. If you know of a place where we can get figures for renewable energy production, I could convert the graph to include that <1% using the same method as this graph. LokiiT (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nice rendering, indeed. I'll see if I can find the figures for renewable energy. GreyHood ^Talk 21:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it makes sense to add a note about the world economy crisis to the Russian GDP graph, like the note on 1998 financial crisis already there. GreyHood ^Talk 21:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

There's not enough room. If I try to force it to fit it looks really bad and contrasts with the rest of the graph. Besides I don't really think it's necessary, everyone knows about the global financial crisis. LokiiT (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi LokiiT,

I noticed that you are adding charts to wikipedia in a PNG format, so I wanted to suggest using SVG instead (see commons:Commons:Transition_to_SVG). I created a demo chart File:Albania demography.svg which recreates the formatting you usually employ, just as an example. I used Gnuplot for this, but there are a lot of tools for SVG creation or export. Other examples include File:Population of Taiwan since 1978.svg, File:Saudipop.svg. My choice of Gnuplot is based on the fact that the source can be easily added to the description page, so that the chart may later be updated with minimum effort. Please consider this and let me know if you have any comments. Demmo (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't like SVG. Too much of a hassle for such little improvements. Moreover most people don't know how to use or edit SVG files, or even save them to their harddrive, and I want to encourage people to use my images outside of wikipedia. LokiiT (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Since you're skilled with Excel, could you please make a nice-looking popularity chart for Medvedev from the data at [6]? (It's already in an Excel file). That would be very useful for a new chapter "popularity" at Dmitry Medvedev. Nanobear (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I already made one here, but I guess someone removed it from the article. I'll update it and you can put it back in the article. LokiiT (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

done LokiiT (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I just thought I'd ask you if you could update this graph with new data the from 2011 Census? GreyHood ^Talk 23:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's already up to date as of January 1, 2011. The census data might be different by a few thousand, but that wouldn't change the appearance of the graph and it will be corrected for next year's update. LokiiT (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually the cencus data is different by almost a million. GreyHood ^Talk 23:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Really? Can you throw me a link please? I'll update it if that's the case. LokiiT (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hm, here are the recounted figures for 2010 and new for 2011, but I can't find the updated figures for the entire period. Seems they have updated only 2010 so far. So either we change only 2010 and 2011 on the graph, which would not be quite correct methodologically, or we wait for the full update from Rosstat. GreyHood ^Talk 23:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

If I just update the last two years it will look strange. I think it's best to wait for Rosstat to update the entire table. LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've downgraded this article you've significantly contributed to B-class due to citation needed tags. There are only few, so if you could add the references, we could restore the B-class on the article. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am so sorry, I never meant to report you, I was trying to report an IP but i might have clicked your name by accident, sorry for the accusations and everything, I am awarding you a barnstar! PBASH607 (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's alright, no need for a barnstar. If you disagree with the edit a revert and discussion is fine. I'm just trying to clean the page up a bit. LokiiT (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Two sources from Poland stating that what happened in Ukraine was a non-democratic coup by Maidanists. [7]

[8] Both come from reliable mainstream newspaper and Kuzniar is at top of politics [9]

Now, both sources try to justify the coup in various ways, but still are ready to admit that the events were non-constitutional and a coup. Second one is pretty "interesting" as the author claims democracy has to be suspended when "order" needs it... I thought you might be interested as these sources are from the other side, and non-Russian, yet they confirm that not all is black and white in this crisis. Also contrary to what media may show, there are a lot of people unhappy in Poland about what was done in Ukraine, especially in view of parties like Svoboda or Right Sector gaining power. Many comments in mainstream websites of Polish papers are highly critical of antagonizing Russia by this and supporting nationalists in Ukraine. Anyway that's just my 0.2 cents, and I won't be probably editing much in view how emotional these things get on Wikipedia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. LokiiT (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

So, where do we discuss it? Can we discuss it here? 24.201.209.74 (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

You could discuss it with your friends, write about it in a personal blog, or find an internet forum. Try to keep discussions in article talk pages focused on improvements to the article, which means including links and reliable sources to accompany anything you want to add to the article. LokiiT (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Did you see the talk page? There is a court document and a conviction included in the references you deleted. Please self revert. Thanks! No, not all politicians are criminals, even in Ukraine. ;) USchick (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

User: USchick I'll make you a deal. If you can get the same wording put into Yulia Tymoshenko's article (e.g. Tymoshenko is a convicted criminal), I won't dispute you on this.

What's customary is to expound on the specific activity that he was found guilty of; context and circumstances. Outright calling someone a criminal or a member of organized crime isn't encyclopedic. LokiiT (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yulia Tymoshenko was a political prisoner. I don't mind going into detail about his court records, but I thought it would be "Undue weight" according to policy. There are court records of him being involved in a shooting case where a person was killed. There are other court cases of him being involved with the other guy in fraudulent banking. If I write it all out, it will overpower his page. What do you recommend? USchick (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's just a matter of wording. Instead of saying so and so is a criminal, say so and so was convicted of x and y crimes. Tymoshenko's case may have been political but that doesn't mean her hands were clean. LokiiT (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks. USchick (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have added some information and source which you might consider interesting[10] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate if you could revert mathew's removal of antisemetic violence. I reverted it once and doing so too many times would violate 3 revert rule. I really do not understand his logic. Vapour (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's not a good idea to ask people to revert for you. LokiiT (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please refer to the UN Security Council vote. 13 members vote 'aye', China abstains because of its own interests in Tibet and Xinjiang, Russian veto. Counties voting 'aye' include among others Rwanda, Chad, Nigeria, Chile, Argentina, Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psubrat2000 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I thought that perhaps you'd like to give your opinion about the deletion of Simferopol Incident article. Have a nice day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simferopol_incident Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for edit warring--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.Reply