Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Russavia (talk | contribs) at 01:00, 12 January 2009 (→Web brigades....again: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A question

Could you please answer one question (if this is not a secret)? Do you only use this WP account, or you previously edited under different accounts, perhaps also in Russian wikipedia?Biophys (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the only account I have ever used. Offliner (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry for asking this question. You look very much as a regular in WP. I hope we can resolve our differences at the article talk page.Biophys (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Web brigades

Hello, Offliner. I've read your statement on the talk page of Web brigades article, as well as some of your recent contributions, and I think you are a right person to rework the article in view of neutrality. I know of Wikipedian rule "be bold", but neutrality is not my strong side. In case you decide to work on the article, you have my assistance wherever you need it. Good luck! ellol (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks to the many edits by you and other people, the article does seem more balanced already. I don't know what else I could do, especially since Biophys is often reverting changes to the article. Offliner (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Award!

		The WikiChevrons
		Good work on the RT-2UTTH Topol M, SS-N-23, Buk missile system articles. In recognition of your efforts towards maintaining military history and weaponry articles, please accept these Weaponry Task Force WikiChevron! --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 17:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict

You caught me in the middle of what was a bigger edit, so I reimposted my final version. The reasons for deleting that part are, first, that the new version makes it clear that both civilian and military targets were hit and, second and more important, there is collateral damage in ALL wars. If we include an excusing statement next to each civilian dead, we'll end up with an article twice the size. --Xeeron (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I included that statement because I wanted to express Russia's military motivation of launching attacks on Gori and beyond. I think this is important to include at that point in the article so that the reader knows not only what happened, but has some idea of why it happened. Perhaps I'll be looking for a better statement for that purpose. Although, as you said, it could already be clear from the context. But it could be made more explicit. Offliner (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia again

Recently found this: .

I think it should be incorporated in the article, probably along with the following:

As for Erosi Kitsmarishvili we already have an article on him.

I have veraious COI problems over this and I like the way you and the other fellow are reworking the article. You probably have a good idea where this info should go. Best of luck. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out those links. I added Kitsmarishvili's statement to "Discussion about responsibility for the war" -> "Other statements". Offliner (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

NYTimes article about Gaza Policemen

Thanks for pointing out the changed NYTimes link.

The link has been fixed here .

I also think this is relevant .

--John Bahrain (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I saw the discussion, but a subsequent discussion including a complete proposal by me, has been discussed commented and thoroughly modified. The issue of the truce didn't come up at all. While I disagree with your views on the importance of the truce (very little sources say this, including either side - the contentious issue is the Hamas rockets, not the truce), I agree we should discuss it. I am sorry you were under the impression you act with a discussion in mind, perhaps it was lost in the huge clutter and tendency to star new threads instead of continuing the existing ones. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thebiojoe

Hello, I'm not sure how to work with wikipedia. I'm a new user. Can you briefly explain me how to be involved. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebiojoe (talk • contribs) 09:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a new user to wikipedia. Can you explain to me how I can provide my reasons and be involved with the articles. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebiojoe (talk • contribs) 09:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

When making an edit, you can write your reason in the "Edit Summary" box. It's a good habit to provide reasons for one's edits as often as possible. Offliner (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you make a big edit and your argumentation is too long to fit into the Edit Summary box, you should go to the article talk page, click "new section" and write your argumentation there. Offliner (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Web brigades....again

I think you may want to look at web brigades. The article owner has again reinserted all that information which is not relevant to this Russian conspiracy theory, and now User:Martintg is playing the team game by claiming consensus and reinserting said info again. What do you think? Is it about time this piece of rubbish article is taken to AfD, and have this thrashed out for once and for all, because the entire thing is based upon the views of a single nutcase reporter. Anyway, your views on this are welcome on the article talk page, as it seems this is going to happen every other month when the owner of the article decides to re-include everything again. --Russavia 01:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)