Svmich
Welcome!
edit
|
Request for edit summary
edit
Thanks for your help on the 2008 IIHF World Championship article. I just wanted to drop a quick reminder to "...always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary." Please see Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. lil2mas (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Referee name
editPlease don't revert the change I made there. I'm Finnish and the referee is known in Finland as Jyri Rönn, so I think it's more sensible to have it like that, whatever official page says.
Otherwise you have done great work there, thanks for that.BleuDXXXIV (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
IIHF
edit9 points in 4 games is better than 9 points in 5 games. 9 points in 4 games is 75% of the possible points; 9 points in 5 games is 60% of the possible points. I probably should have checked before I changed it, but I guarantee you the IIHF's standings at the website are the same. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
editI just wanted to drop by and thank you for accepting my change to the IIHF World Championship articles. I would also thank you for starting writing edit summaries, as I previously requested. It's looking good now! (If it is to any help, I support you on the matter of Russia having 24 titles!;) Keep up the good work! lil2mas (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
2014 Winter Olympics
editCan I ask why you removed the paragraph about the problems with financing for the games? I think it added to the article.
Spigot007 (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and very nice that you asked me this. This specific update was done along with adding fresh news in Financing section - and I hope you noticed it. And this new information tells now otherwise on the issue: that the Organizing Committee currently have no difficulties financing the preparation to the Olympics, because they have attracted funds enough to postpone financial support from the Russian Government until at least 2010. Thank you for your attention to the article! Svmich (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I looked at the source for the information on the financing the Sochi organising committee claims to have found, and I don't believe it. It looks like they have invented it, in my eyes. I am not challenging your source, however I think time will show whether they really have the money or not. Maybe it is worth putting the information about the previous financial difficulties back into the article to give it some historical perspective. What do you think? Spigot007 (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm... I consider the information trustworthy. They have got several major sponsors (Megafon, Rostelecom, Rosneft etc.), promising them exclusive business privileges in the region (according to an interview by BBC Russian with Dmitry Chernyshenko, available here in russian), and the money they attracted look real. Yes, anyway time will tell...
- I looked at the BBC News article. As for the budget cut, there are savings due to construction prices drop («Mr Putin also noted that construction costs were decreasing as a result of a recent drop in the price of materials.»), not difficulties. Btw., BBC is wrong when citing that article in russian from Interfax, which tells about the Federal State budget cut by 15%, not the Olympics budget cut, whereas «the expenses for 2014 Olympics … will remain the same», according to the article. (I guess they mean the structure of expenses, since the costs «were decreasing».)
- As for the «lack of interest from firms in bidding for projects, forcing the local authorities to extend tender deadlines», frankly, I'm not sure we need to write on this matter, it's routine and quite rapid changing: there are numerous tenders published on the official website and it's not easy to track any changes of the interest in bidding.
- And, finally, as for «mounting difficulty in acquiring land necessary for Olympic infrastructure because owners were refusing to sell at prices offered by the government», I consider this news simply obsolete: there is a fresh article in russian (June 9, 2009) on the official website on compensation paid to owners of land, acquired for the Olympics (current construction sites). They also claim that «From day to day this process accelerates, with much work to be done». So I don't see they have sufficient risks of any delay of starting construction at any designated site.
- I'm not sure there's a place for historical perspectives on such issues in the article on 2014 Olympics. And of course I have to admit sometimes we need to verify the sources of information, trying to reach the original source (not a citing one). Svmich (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure everyone appreciates the work you have done on the article. However, I'm not sure that your trust in the official website of the games is well-placed. If this version of the Olympics was being held in a democratic country, then I would be inclined to believe what the offical website said. However, the articles on the Sochi Games website look like they belong in the 1960s Pravda. I'm not sure quite what would lead anyone to take seriously what is written on the offical website.
- Well, now you made it clear. :-) Thanks. I'm not in a position to challenge your right to have the opinion you have, including your assumptions regarding any other reader. Btw., of course I'm aware some western media still maintain, despite of everything, that old image of Russia. OK, seems that it doesn't matter for others in the West and for the rest of the World. And Russia also don't care. :-) Svmich (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
This has got nothing to do with a particular stereotype about Russia, but a logical assessment of the facts. Maybe you need to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_Russia#Freedom_House_report. Please tell me this: would you believe a press statement from the Zimbabwean government? Neither would I, and I don't see why it is unreasonable to doubt the veracity of information released by the Sochi Games organisers, given the political background. I find your deletion of valid material on the Games page objectionable, and would not be surprised to find out you work for the Games organisers. However, I can't be bothered taking it any further. Time will tell if the Games are successfully funded and organised, and at what cost to the region's citizens. If Russia is lucky and the price of oil returns to its peak and the various organisers, local politicians and contractors don't pocket all the funding granted to the Games, then it might be a success. If not, maybe they will still have time to shift the Games to another country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spigot007 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Should I apply the same rules, for instance, to the United States-related articles just because CNN didn't publish my post among others at their website? Please, let's take it serious. And, frankly, we can start doubt about 2010 Winter Olympics-related statements on some Canada-related or Vancouver authorities-related grounds (btw., some of these statements regarding planning for the Games will turn out to be wrong - i.e. welcome to the real life), but we can simply rely on the authority responsible for the preparation to the Olympics (legally chosen by the IOC), regardless of our own view on how much do we trust them. And more: I'm not sure about what made you suspecious, but I don't work for the Games organizers. Svmich (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Stellar hotel (Sochi)
edit
A tag has been placed on Stellar hotel (Sochi) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. MrStalker (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
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) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)