Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:00, 2 October 2008

Welcome!

Hello, LokiiT, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Chechnya

I apologize for any misunderstanding, it's just that according to a source already provided, http://www.boyntonweb.net/Policy/Chechnya2.htm, the new numbers you put down were different. This source claims atleast 6000 were killed, yet you put 5,500, and the previous information had over 7000. Please explain. Guldenat (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well. My sincere apologies for the misunderstanding and hindering your efforts. Cheers. Guldenat (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction

Sorry, I've meant not 'sourced information' but 'sources'. This still has to be explained (at the talk, preferably). Alæxis_¿question? 05:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if a link is broken it doesn't mean that the reference has to be removed altogether. Often it's possible to find an archived page in the Internet Archive. Alæxis_¿question? 15:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Message

WP:3RR means you're not allowed to do more than 3 reverts in one day or you will be blocked. You've done that now but I won't report you since you're not aware of the rule. You should undo your last revert or a moderator can still block you. If you really think the sources are bad open a discussion about it on the talk page. - Pieter_v (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia War

Please be sure to use a meaningful edit summary with each edit - especially in a contentious article as this. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetian War 2008 - Map

Hi, I've changed the map after your feedback. Maybe you could have a look on it and tell me whether it's better now or not? Thanks -- DanteRay (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

With regard to this your edit, please note that cited source tells the following:

In Senaki, Russian soldiers had occupied Lia Baramia’s cafe. She had fled when she heard about the fighting. When she returned, Russian soldiers had dug trenches....

Please do not do such edits again or you may be blocked.Biophys (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't realize that that article had two pages. Thanks for assuming bad faith and threatening me though. Are you an admin by the way? LokiiT (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

O'K, let's assume that was a mistake. But how about this edit and that edit? Please be careful with sources. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I explained those edits in talk in great detail. Look over WP:Vandalism please, you're not going to make any friends by calling every edit you don't like vandalism. LokiiT (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not call anything "vandalism".Biophys (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Then what was the "you may be blocked" threat all about? I'm pretty sure you can't be blocked for making a good faith edit. LokiiT (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No response? Didn't think so. Don't go around picking fights with people in the future. I can be a nice guy, but I don't let things like that slip by. You've harassed me before and followed me around reverting my edits to support your "friends" in edit wars. I don't see what good you think can possibly come of this sort of behavior. LokiiT (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No official sources please

On August 16, The general staff of Moscow confirmed that Russia had occupied Poti, as well as military bases in Gori and Senaki. It stated that they were there to "defuse an enormous arsenal of weapons and military hardware which have been discovered in the vicinity of Gori and Senaki without any guard whatsoever."

The Russian Government cannot confirm anything; nor can the Georgian Government: they are the interested parties, and we are not here to reprint their public statements. I am leaving this shortly; but if I find this when I return, I will tag it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

He's just repeating what the BBC and Guardian already reported. The way it was worded made it sound like the Russians were denying it, when in fact they "made no secret" of it and confirmed it themselves. What wikipedia policy says no official sources are allowed? The article would be useless without statements such as the one above, it would be impossible to get a scope on what was happening if we only used reporter eye witnesses.. WP:V requires verifiability, not truth. Government statements are what they are, they can't be censored or ignored because you personally don't like them. LokiiT (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that this has been answered. Such statements are primary sources, and secondary sources are preferred. But policies are outer bounds; well-written articles do not include everything that policy can be stretched to permit.

If the wording suggested that the Russians denied something they admitted, the honest solution would be to reword, not add Russian statements . If this continues, I will request mediation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Be civil please

I would highly appreciate if you stop firing personal accusations at my talk page. Please re-read WP:CIV policy. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course I am not going to respond to this per WP:CIV.Biophys (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would highly appreciate it if you would explain your dishonesty and constant removal of properly sourced material based on lies. I'll copy paste my original message over here so maybe you can some day respond and explain yourself:

NOTE TO BIOPHYS

• I've noticed once again you're trying to completely remove and censor sourced and relevant information from an article that represents Russia's point of view. This is concerning because I see you doing it a lot in all kinds of articles. I'm of course talking about this edit. Odd that you claim it's not about the war, since the title of the article is "The war of miscalculations", and the first words of the article read: "It took well over a week after the Tbilisi offensive against South Ossetia..."

• Odd indeed. Now I do agree with you that it doesn't belong in such a high priority spot in the article. That is, I would agree were it not for the rest of the "opinion pieces" in that section which I have already tried and failed to remove. My adding that paragraph was to balance POV issues. If you wish to remove all opinion pieces from the section, feel free to do so, you have my support. If not, please don't compromise the neutrality of the article by removing only the opinions that you apparently disagree with on bogus claims of being off topic. LokiiT (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• And I just noticed you did it again! Here, you say "rm misrepresentation of source. it only tells that US military had no any information whatsoever", but a direct quote from the article says "But the official said there was no obvious buildup of Russian forces along the border that signaled an intention to invade." So no that was not a misinterpretation of the article at all. This is getting out of hand. LokiiT (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I replied at article talk page. This is citation out of context.Biophys (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you suddenly changed your story without explaining your original lie about it being "OR" and "misinterpreted" despite being basically copy-pasted from the article. Sorry but that doesn't solve anything. LokiiT (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation out of context is misinterpretation. This is about interpretation of a source, not about you. There is a significant difference between "misinformation" and "disinformation".Biophys (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

revert of Jumber on 2008 South Ossetia war

You just edited 2008 South Ossetia war stating "revert edits by Jumber due to massive WP:OR and altering of material to fit a pov. Jumber, please DO NOT add unsourced information to this page, it will be reverted." Could you tell me to which version you did revert? From your statement I expected: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=237131233&oldid=237123449 to be empty. Could you please clarify? -- JanCK (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC) .

It was mostly a revert of this edit, but I had to copy/paste everything from an earlier version due to edit conflicts so technically it wasn't a revert and I might have missed some stuff. LokiiT (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

k. just one more thing. I don't want to take too much time, but: First you posted this link http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=237041506&oldid=237023764 . It seems to me that's the one you meant to post ... though you changed the link afterwards. .. anyway. Have a nice day. -- JanCK (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the first link was the wrong diff, I corrected myself. LokiiT (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, his tag team buddy never left, he created a new account, User:Grey_Fox-9589.--Miyokan (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

hah, I had my suspicions. LokiiT (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

LokiiT (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please see this discussion. I didn't use any alternate account to sockpuppet, vandalize, edit war or gain consensus. What abuse? I'm being blocked for a month because I use different accounts for different topics and didn't want to associate myself with certain topics? This administrator who blocked me took impulsive actions when he wasn't even involved in this, without so much as contributing to the discussion with the other admins.

Decline reason:

No, it was violative sockpuppety. If I had closed the RFCU, it would have been an indef block. — MBisanz 16:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.