User talk:UA Victory/sandbox

I am boldly going to create this page, so as to discuss the changes you proposed on the associated user page. If you do not wish to have this page in your user-space, I will have no objections to your tagging it for speedy deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Minor ce
 * 1) I've made this change
 * 2) When discussing government policy, Moscow and the Kremlin are the same thing; in fact, the Kremlim is slightly more accurate, since it is actually the place where policy is created.
 * 3) You refer to the region as "Georgia" throughout; therefore, "nationalism in Georgia" is correct.
 * 4) Titles are capitalized when used before a person's name; see WP:JOBTITLES. If there are other instances, I will correct them.
 * Map
 * 1) Make any changes that you will, I have no objection; I don't think I changed it at all.
 * British English
 * Corrections made.
 * CE errors
 * Corrected, except for the first, where your suggestion introduces a grammatical error, and even if corrected, is no different in meaning. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Separate paragraphs
 * MOS:PARAGRAPHS advises against single sentence paragraphs. If you still wish to restore them, go ahead, but I am disinclined to do so; it looks clunky, and makes the section flow worse. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tagged text
 * 1) You need to clarify this. "economic reasons such as oil" makes no sense. If it needs an extra sentence, so be it. I would recommend something like "oil reserves in Azerbaijan, and the possibility of transporting Central Asian oil through the Caucuses, are among the economic reasons making the region strategically important."
 * 2) Again, you need to fix this. "South Ossetia was originally intended as a tool to retain a grip on Georgia" means nothing. Why? How? If I understand it correctly, I would recommend "Putin intended to use the threat of Russian involvement in the conflict over South Ossetia as a means of intimidating Georgia" or something like that, but I don't know the sources.
 * 3) Say what the source says. The current version is WP:WEASEL in the extreme.
 * 4) Done, though the confusion was not introduced by me.
 * 5) I have removed the confusing sentence. I have tweaked your version of the other one, because it contained a redundancy.
 * 6) Changed as per the clarification you provided.
 * 7) Changed as per the clarification you provided.
 * 8) Changed as per the clarification you provided.
 * "Factual Errors"
 * 1) With due respect, no, this is incorrect. "Territory" is used as a generic term for an area that fits some description. It should be plural only if it is used as an official designation.
 * 2) I did not introduce this, but it has been corrected.
 * 3) "approved" as used in your suggestion is poor grammar, so left as is.
 * 4) Done except I've removed the word "possible." It is an over-qualification. And I would point out that this is not an error, but just a matter of preference.
 * 5) Then it should read "according to Russian Law," "according to Russia," or something. We cannot simply say that they were Russian citizens, because (as you seem to be aware) this status was disputed.
 * 6) Done; again, not an "error," but a redundancy.
 * 7) Not sure where you are getting this from. Their titles are not remotely disputed, and parentheses make it look uglier. What guideline makes you say this?
 * 8) Same as previous
 * 9) What is wrong with this? They were captured in the same offensive. Are you saying the source says different? Unless it does, the descriptor makes it clearer.
 * 10) Okay, but there is no error here; merely different sentence parsing. You are reading it as "the only thing Russia could do was evacuate its peacekeepers" whereas what it actually says is "Russia could evacuate its peacekeepers only if they were attacked. However, your version is slightly better.
 * 11) See above.
 * 12) Maybe; but if you wish to use your version, it leaves some things hanging. What Aid did RUssia turn back, if it was not UN aid? Why did the UN not bring mroe aid, if Russia was not stopping it? Very confusing.
 * 13) I did not introduce this, and without seeing the source, I am not comfortable changing it. I have no objections to you changing it, if that is what the sources say.
 * 14) Same as previous.
 * 15) Well, then you need to improve the phrasing. I would suggest "An end to hostilities was announced on 12 August; however, Russian airstrikes continued through the day." but this is up to you; I have no access to the source.
 * 16) Maybe, but your version makes it sound like they are reporting stories they heard elsewhere. This is incorrect. You need to say something like "The Russian military brought Russian journalists to the combat zone to report news discrediting Georgia."
 * 17) Edit the previous sentence to make it clear that this is a quote. We should not use bad grammar in our own voice.
 * 18) No. See WP:CLAIM.
 * 19) Not what the source says. "Image it projects" is the same as saying "image the rest of the world sees." My version is the simplest paraphrase.
 * 20) So what? We can trim quotes as we see fit, so long as it does not change the meaning. The subject of the sentence is quite clear. "Russia" is already in there.
 * 21) Still not adding very much; everything it says is covered in the next one.
 * 22) Perhaps; but it should then be mentioned in the next sentence, or sentence fragment. It sounds a little POV otherwise. Not too concerned, though, so if you feel strongly, change it back. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)