User talk:Nanobear~enwiki/Archive5

Your new appeal
The Arbitration Committee has considered your appeal and decided conditionally to suspend the remaining period of it. Before we do this, we would like to receive assurances from you that you will not repeat behaviour of this kind in the future. This page has been unprotected to enable you to respond. Roger Davies talk 05:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for taking a copy to preserve an oversighted diff and giving a link to it to one person. If this has caused suffering, then I accept that I am partly responsible, because I did not take the necessary precautions to prevent the link from becoming public knowledge. I believe my block was justified and I promise not to take any copies of soon-to-be oversighted diffs in the future, and will take extreme caution in dealing with potentially private information on Wikipedia. Offliner (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The remainder of your block has been now been suspended. Please take great care to avoid any conduct which creates even the impression of impropriety in future.  Roger Davies  talk 18:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hey Offliner, welcome back to editing. Hope you can stay this time lol. There is much work to do, and if you need any suggestions on where you could be used, let me know and I can post them here for you. Cheers, --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 03:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome. Of course, this time I intend to stay, but you never know what can happen even to good contributors. I've got a huge backlog of things to do, but there's no hurry in getting it done, so I'm open to suggestions - as long as it's not something boring like typing in Crime and punishment to Wikisource, or doing a 100x expansion on Flag of Aruba. Offliner (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh darn, just when I was going to suggest Wikisourcing the complete set of laws of the Russian Empire :) Anyway, what I mean to say, welcome back from me as well; glad to see you around again!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 20, 2010; 17:02 (UTC)
 * Well List of Gazprom subsidiaries could use some cleaning up and expansion. And of course other Gazprom-related articles could do with a going over for expansion, etc. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 05:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant
-- Modest Genius talk 16:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Offliner, that's a nice expansion. Well done. Keep them coming. Cheers, --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 17:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dagestan
The region's history in the article is long overdue for being split into a separate article (or even articles). I'm merely trying to keep the article focused on the modern federal subject, which the new title encourages. There is nothing wrong with putting everything and the kitchen sink into one article at its early stages of development, but once enough material accumulates, everyone is best served by keeping the information tightly grouped. Does that make sense?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 24, 2010; 20:25 (UTC)
 * That is easily fixed by moving the dab to Dagestan (disambiguation), redirecting "Dagestan" to Republic of Dagestan, and adding the redirect hatnote to the "Republic of Dagestan" article. The reason I didn't do it that way was to gauge the number of concerns regarding leaving the dab at "Dagestan".  Congratulations, yours is #1 :)  If you could wait a few days before doing it the way I described above, I would appreciate it.  Is that acceptable to you?  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 24, 2010; 20:38 (UTC)

Discussion
You started a discussion at my talk page. Unless you have something to add, I will remove it soon to possibly have a wikibreak as I was going to. Thank you for your comments.Biophys (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center
Hello! Your submission of Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mikenorton (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK 31-24-36
is questioned here. Your reaction would be appreciated. Materialscientist (talk) 6:47 am, Today (UTC+8)

DYK for Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Irina Antonenko
-- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to take issue with some of this article. "The jury concluded that there is more to Russia's new beauty than meets the eye, and that she has the brains to match the looks" and "ntonenko believes her best qualities are persistence, sincerity and friendliness, as well as drive and passion in the fight for victory" - how, exactly, do these constitute NPOV? Ironholds (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would they violate NPOV? The first is what the jury said. The latter is how she describes her personality. Both are interesting, important and sourced. Offliner (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not abuse the Russia's article page as Russia as a superpower, removing all content is completely abuse, here's your facts
Russia is superpower; it is a state with a leading position in the international system which has the ability to influence events globally and its own interests by projecting its power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests.

Russia for fills the criteria of a superpower for its resources measured by its four axes of power: massive military, economic power, political power, and cultural (and the ability to use soft and hard power).Russia has as a massive political community that occupies a continental-sized landmass, has a sizable population (relative at least to other major powers); a super ordinate economic capacity, including ample indigenous supplies of food and natural resources; has a high degree of non-dependence on an international intercourse; and, most importantly has a well-developed nuclear capacity (in fact the worlds largest).

Russia is able to conduct a global strategy as a superpower including of having the ability to destroy the world (in fact more than the United States can); can command vast economic potential and world influence; and to present a universal ideology as Russia can project its power, soft and hard, globally on a world wide scale.

Russia remains a global Superpower according to a lot sources such as here are several sources claiming Russia is superpower (not regional): "Russia is a Superpower CNN", US Senators telling the truth - CNN Wolf interview: March 2009 and "Washington Acknowledges Russia as a Superpower" - Kommersant News 2007 - Daniel Fried, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament" - Project-Syndicate News By Sergei Karaganov April 29, 2010 and "Azerbaijanis, Armenians can be good neighbors" (Superpower Neighbor Russia) News Az March 2, 2010 by Akper Hasanov and "Perspective of Karabakh conflict settlement unreal in current conditions" - News 1 June 2010 and "Venezuela's Hugo Chavez recognizes independence of breakaway Georgia republics", Russia is a Superpower - Los Angeles Times by September 11, 2009 editor Megan K. Stack and "The dangers of nuclear disarmament" - TODAY’S ZAMAN News by Sergei Karaganov May 1, 2010 and "Sergei Karaganov: Weapons that save us from ourselves" - Scotsman News: May 5, 2010 and "Kyrgyzstan conflict" Right after the uprising, on Wednesday, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir - in a tug-of-war between the two rival superpowers- Sunday's Zaman by Dogu Ergil April 17, 2010 ERGIL and "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament" - Saint Petersburg Times By Sergei Karaganov May 4, 2010 and "PM's visit underlines rising Indian interest in Ibsa", Bric- Business Standard News; Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi April 16, 2010 “Is Russia Warming Up For A New Cold War” by Brian Mciver Oct 20, 2008 and “Medvedev or Putin: Who Holds Real Power in Russia” Voa News By Anya Ardayeva October 16, 2008 and “A multipolar world with multiple scenario - The rise of China, the reborn of Russia as a superpower” Agora Vox News: January 2010 and “The Cold Peace” Spiegel News by By Ralf Beste Sept 9, 2009 and “Russia and the West: The Cold Peace” – Free Internet Press - Sept 1, 2008 and “Running out of time” - Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM December 2009 and “CHAVEZ PREDICTS THE END OF AMERICA” Moscow University - International News Analysis Today - September 17, 2009 and “Russia indeed a superpower, says diplomat” – Derschos News by Equipo Nizkor Aug 30, 2009 and “Russia to Aust: Don't dump uranium deal - AAP News September2,  2008 and “Which country's going to be the next superpower” September 2008 and “Russia pilots proud of flights to foreign shores” - The Associated Press By DAVID NOWAK: “Rather than hostile to the West, the pilots seemed more keen that Russia be taken seriously as a military superpower once again”. --Globalstatus (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Requestioning sources on Russia as great power
Because the article has changed from superpower to great power under the Russia article I am now going to question the article as a great power as it stands as you have been actively involved in this discussion. I want to read sources from you that says Russia is a great power and not from great power article (not the table in the end) (that is not an effective source) because contributing editors who have denounced edits in the great powers is not the accurate source of information when there has been conflicting contributing editors that denounced the sources on there. Since the article is misleading the readers I am questioning its sources to say otherwise with information stating Russia is a great power and not a superpower. There should be a weight of sources to have this article state it is great power so I am seeking that information as you have said Russia is a great power so I want to ask you for your sources please. Provide these great power acedemic sources please.--Globalstatus (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aircraft industry of Russia
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Science and technology in Russia
Cheers and salutations! Please watch out for this new article, piped off from Russia (the section soon will be cut significantly). So far there is just a historical overview, and an expansion on present situation is needed. Greyhood (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I could, at least, insert some material about the aircraft and space industry sectors. But I'm not exactly sure what the viewpoint should be. (Obviously, it should not be just "economy".) Offliner (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the view point should be "technology", its level and current developments, rather than "economy". But of course any mention of economical significance of any technology is also important. Adding material from current economy articles is indeed a good solution for quick improvement of the article. Greyhood (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, I'm planning to create Space industry of Russia soon, before someone does it first and steals all the glory. There are indications that I need to hurry :) I can add some space technology material to your article later. The other sectors, like nuclear, shipbuilding and automobile, are also on my to-do list, but I don't know when I will have time to write them. Offliner (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's OK. Btw, here are the effects of your DYK hook on Aircraft industry. Good enough, but still the article would do better with some additional cross-linking and templating. Greyhood (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, may I ask your opinion on the current rendering of the List of Russian people? Does it look good or better turn it into single column with fewer images? And how long do you load it with purging? Greyhood (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It takes about 8 seconds to load with purging. I think a single column would probably look better. I wouldn't want to loose the images unless it's necessary. Offliner (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. Unfortunately it is not that easy to insert the same number of portraits on the right side of a single column. Do you feel that currently the text is squashed between the images and not readable easy enough, or not? Greyhood (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If we have to choose between having two columns or removing many of the images, I would choose two columns. It doesn't look that bad, just strange since I've rarely seen it used elsewhere. Text getting sandwitched between the images is not a problem, but for some reason the ratio between the columns is not 50%-50%, but something like 60%-40%. Right now I'm using a lower-resolution monitor than usual. Perhaps it looks better with a bigger screen. Offliner (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The exact ratio is 50%-48% with 2% of space in between. Perhaps the column of Wikipedia's toolbox creates a 60%-40% percent illusion, strange. Greyhood (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a sample of how it would look in one column. Greyhood (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
You haz answers Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

ITN for RSM-56 Bulava
--Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

RSM-56 Bulava
Re: Your RSM-56 Bulava edit

The quote from BarentsObserver was removed because it's not supported by the source BarentsObserver used. The BarentsObserver writes:
 * The Russian navy has “frozen” the building of the Borei-class submarines, since without the Bulava they are worthless assets, Kalistratov told reporters according to the Moscow based Izvestia newspaper.

The referenced Izvestia article does not contain such quote by Kalistratov and talks about delaying the construction of the fourth Borey submarine, not the whole program. Besides, the claim that without Bulava Borei-class submarines are worthless is patently false.

Unless you have additional sources to support your edit I'll revert it. C1010 (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're correct: not the whole Borei construction has been frozen. (I don't have time to fix and look for sources right now). But your edit removed lots of ofter stuff well, which is perfectly valid info. Offliner (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition to what we have discussed above, I removed not "lots of ofter stuff" but one (1) sentence and it does not appear to be a valid info. Specifically, I removed the following sentence:
 * The delays are expected to be costly: the navy receives more than 40% of Russia's total defense budget and most of that money is spent on strategic nuclear submarines.


 * This is a quote by Pavel Felgenhauer, a former biologist, who now wants to be known as a "defense analyst." Felgenhauer is known for making ridiculous statements but this one is intentionally vague and contradicts common sense: How much is "most of that money?" What does the budget for other strategic Russian subs have to do with the budget for the fourth Borey? Why should "freezing" of the fourth Borey sub (it's not even started) be costly for the Russian Navy? Isn't the whole point of freezing construction that they don't have to pay money, otherwise why freeze it?


 * With reference to the above, Felgenhauer's statement is pure speculation that makes little sense, and thus should be removed. C1010 (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Felgenhauer is on the list at onolitegi.ru and seems to have rather bad reputation as an expert. I agree with C1010 here, and recommend not to reference anything with Felgenhauer's words. Grey Hood   Talk  22:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I think I was too quick in judging C1010's edit. With the explanations, I think the edit is actually 100% valid. My purpose in the section was to show how serious the delays in Bulava's development are for the Borei program. I don't know how exactly to formulate it. Here's what MDB, which I consider a very reliable source, has to say: "The Kremlin’s decision at the turn of the century to rely predominantly on the submarine component of the strategic nuclear deterrent is increasingly looking like a big and costly mistake. A lot of time and money has already been ploughed into the new Project 955 (Yuriy Dolgorukiy class) submarine, even as the Bulava missile it is supposed to carry is still very much a work in progress." Something like this should be reflected in the article. But I don't have much time now to edit and to look for sources. Offliner (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Russian army general and former chief on military equipment explains that in fact all those failures with testing Bulava are perfectly normal for a process of development of a new ICBM. According to the source, there were 32 failured tests of R-29RMU Sineva and only 6 successful, and still Sineva is now on duty. I'd add something like this into the article. Also, I've read somewhere that situation when the submarines are ready but ICBMs for them are still in development is not infrequent (if I remember right, something like this happened with the Typhoon class submarines). So I'd be very sceptical about all those criticisms of Bulava program, since many commentators are just unaware of and unexperienced in the ICBM development process. Grey Hood   Talk  23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there ever was Kremlin's decision "to rely predominantly on the submarine component" (is there an official source?); I believe Kremlin emphasized nuclear triad: Russia's nuclear triad comprises land-based ballistic missile systems, nuclear-powered submarines equipped with sea-based ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers carrying nuclear bombs and nuclear-capable cruise missiles. Also, see WP:SPECULATION, all those is-looking-like-a-biiiig-mistake speculations should not be in the article. C1010 (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
This time it's more like 'you haz confuzzt'. Have a read - see if it makes any sense to you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Soyuz TMA-01M
--Great work, thanks! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the award, I really appreciate it a lot. I will continue to help at ITN and elsewhere in WP to the best of my ability. Offliner (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You did not by any chance happen to see Anna Chapman at the launch site? If you did, I hope you took pictures :-) The article would need some free photos. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:NCE
Re. this. I thought NCE, TITLE and DAB are all pretty clear about this - if there is no article on these other incidents (that were presumably also shootings), then we don't pre-emptively disambiguate, and the only article we do have should be at Chechen Parliament shootings. If there were other incidents (distinct ones which would have their own article), we rename/disambiguate as and when the need arises, not before. MickMacNee (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think NCE means that there must exist specific articles about these other events. The Chechen parliament has been the scene of violence before, at least during the two wars. I strongly think that "2010" in the name is necessary. Offliner (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole point of DAB (the guideline from which NCE partly derives) is to separate two or more existing articles, not one existing with with absent theoretical/future ones, or where a whole article title might confict with aspects of other articles (you are presumably not suggesting the incidents in the wars will ever get their own separate shooting incident articles?). And TITLE, (a policy) is extremely clear per WP:PRECISION, we do not make titles more precisely than to merely indicate the topic, which Chechen Parliament shootings clearly does. The '2010' is effectively a disambiguator, and if you look at it that way, then Chechen Parliament shootings (2010) is clearly unneccessary and would not fly as a title without any competing articles. MickMacNee (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I strongly disagree with you. WP:NCE says "If these descriptors are not sufficient to identify the event unambiguously, a third descriptor should be added: [when]". So it is about making a distinction between events, not articles. Offliner (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. For me, when we don't even have an article on the Chechen Parliament, and when Chechen Parliament shootings goes nowhere but to the 2010 article, then this issue is not worth wasting any more time on. I've told you the basic principles, and I've told you where the wording of NCE comes from. NCE does not exist in a vacuum, and should not be read in such isolation. If that's not enough, I'm out. Maybe I'll do an Rfc on NCE sometime down the line, as this is a common mistake. MickMacNee (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, in this case, the "2010" is necessary since the topic is this year's violence near the building, not the previous violence (the two wars, the 2002 truck bombing or any other attacks near the area). The guidelines do not prohibit precision like this, but encourage it. Offliner (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 attack on the Chechen Parliament
--Nice job, thanks. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Chechen parliament attack
Because there is a more specific term than "islamists," furthermore the kavkaz center is used to cite this fact (ie- from the horse's mouth, NOT for some gospel fact)
 * And the reactions are also duly noted in that article itself. Theres not hard-and-fast rule against it (it has its own wikipedia page), especialyl since the edit is not using it in a POV way. If you feel there is somethign that can be reworded we can discuss it in talk, but theres nothign POV-ish abuot it.Lihaas (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Um,, your actions are disruptive. The discussion on the talk page does NOT affirm your view, per consensus the onus is not up to the whim of 1 editor. the source is used on wikipedia, and is not illegal!
 * Wikipedia works on consensus and 2 vs. 1 editor seems to warrants its inclusion, for excusion get consensusLihaas (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kavkaz Center is the official news organization of the Caucasus Emirate, so they are authoritative on the statements and views Doku Umarov and his team. It should however not be used to source an "analysis" section. The Finnish staff that make up the "Department of Monitoring" are often well informed. After all, some of them are Finland's leading writers and journalists (cannot tell you who, as it would be a BLP violation.)
 * If what they say is sourced to other reliable sources, then you should be able to use the original sources to make the same statements. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise, the analysis is sourced to the other section (and still doesnt "analyse" as much as quote). the responsibility section just does that. the "allahu akbar" passage was taken from kavkaz center (which is plausible to have not been true), but stayed on the page without the source. the reaction section has changed and anotehr source was added. Anyways, seems like its mostly sorted now. Even the other editor has come round to accepting it with due caveat (where it always was, as weve had such conversation before (i think with you), and thus i know its a controversial source). Seems only the "background" is questionable now, which is from the page the 2 of us were previously working on. What are your views on that, and its relevance? after all it is "background"Lihaas (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Krohn. The article needs more editors. I cannot do anything there anymore because I don't wish to edit war. Offliner (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, jeez then remove it. nothing to get intoa hissy-fit about.
 * I saw you have, cool and Lihaas (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
I've deleted the redirect you asked.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 23, 2010; 14:44 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Offliner (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about an RfC
Please note that there's a new discussion at Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year. Roger talk 05:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)