User talk:LokiiT

Archive 86

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

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

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:

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.

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

Offliner (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you think this wording is neutral? Why don't we use similar wording in

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."

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. --

I also left the damned welcome template too.

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.

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

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

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

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 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!

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]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I am sorry for accusing you, as you are truly the wrong person to accuse, you have done a lot for wikipedia, Thank you, and I hope you accept my apology talk) 00:12, 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

Hello, LokiiT. 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

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)[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]

Hello, LokiiT. 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

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)[reply]