Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nanobear~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 00:11, 7 February 2009 (→Wrong). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)

Biophys seems to revert back to his favourite version at every possible excuse, undoing improvements written by many different people. Mukadderat put it well on the talk page: Talk:Web brigades#Reversal to old versions of text. Offliner (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In regards to your RS noticeboard post, this is egregious harrassment of editors mentioned in that arbcom, and a gaming of the system by those editors who are obviously acting as a team. Due to the long period of harrassment on myself by some of these editors, I will be taking it to arbcom enforcement. --Russavia 02:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

SO war lead

Since you seem to be a reasonable editor, I'll try talking to you instead of FeelSunny. My problems with his lead addition are:

1. The peacekeepers in Tskhinvali were not mandated by UN, nor by CIS, but by JCC. All sources about the UN are talking about the very different UNOMIG troops.
2. The fact that the peacekeepers were killed in the initial shelling is not supported by any source, they might have just as well died in streetfighting or from any other cause.
3. The conclusion that this was the casus belli for Russia to enter the war is not confirmed by any source (on the contrary, I am sure that with a bit of googling I would find statements by Putin/Medvediev saying that the killing of South Ossetian civilians was). This is only FeelSunnys own conclusion and thus OR.
4. Mentioning the killed russian peacekillers, without mentioning the georgian policemen killed a few days earlier upsets the POV balance of the lead. Both numbers were not in there for a reason.

I would love to solve this through discussion, but the talk page of 2008 South Ossetia war bears witness to the fact that FeelSunny can not be reached by rational arguements. I will not stop removing factually wrong statements he inserts and I will insist that the lead stays balanced. Please respond to my concerns so that we hopefully can stop the developing revert war. --Xeeron (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right about those points. It's probably best not to mention any casualties, "blame game", casus belli, etc. in the lead at all. Although it's a good idea to try to make some changes from time to time to see if something works better, it's probably best to keep the current version for now. Offliner (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Glukhov

Hi Offliner, have you been following this story at all. It surely needs to be mentioned somewhere, perhaps its own article, perhaps not. What do you think? --Russavia 10:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like another provocation by the Georgian secret service. I'm not sure in which article that should go. Probably 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict would be the best, but only if it's renamed from "2008" to "2008-2009." I guess I'll do just that. Offliner (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is now in 2008-2009 Georgia–Russia crisis#Case of Alexandr Glukhov. Offliner (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, it's an interesting case to be sure. Where is the truth in it all. --Russavia 11:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

1991 SO war

I don't know if you are doing anything on the 1991-1992 South Ossetian War, but sometime ago, I created an article Georgia_for_Georgians#Effect_on_Ossetians, and this should be mentioned within the overall context of SO-Georgia conflicts, but where I have no idea. Definitely not within the 2008 war article, but likely in the 1991-1992 article, you think? --Russavia 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Litvinenko article

Hey offliner, I am currently working on User:Russavia/Litvinenko, which involves me rewriting a lot of the article. Instead of making the changes on the main article, would you be open to editing the page in my userspace, so that we can keep edit conflicts to a minimum. I am already removing irrelevant material and adding relevant and NPOVing out assertions, etc. Let me know. --Russavia 21:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, I'll make my next edits on your page if something comes to my mind. Here's one suggestion: different assasination theories should probably be (shortly) covered in the "illness and poisoning" section or immediately after that. At the moment many of the theories aren't mentioned at all in the main article. Offliner (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your re-addition to Biophys' talk page of information he deleted. We can delete information from our talk page at any stage, it's our own little piece of WP that we do somewhat WP:OWN. I have my talk page automatically set up to archive, so that all previous discussions can easily be found. If people want to delete things from their talk page, let them, as far as I am concerned, it doesn't show "openness" with their editing, as you say, but let them do it. The diffs are still there if ever needed though. Cheers --Russavia 03:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted to email you but see you don't accept email. Could you email me as I would like to discuss something with you. --Russavia 03:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I just needed someone to get me a phone number in Russia (I think you are there?), and my mates over there aren't online, but my operator here just managed to get thru...finally. --Russavia 03:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Cheers for agreeing with me. I think the best place to complain would be a non American Admin or even better a bureaucrat Ijanderson (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong

Just stop complaining and READ THE REFERENCES. They are accurate

The figure was updated from 71 from 48. You are quoting old figures. If you wish to contest the 48 figure, please do that at the article talk page first. There is consensus among the editors that 48 is the right, up-to-date figure. Offliner (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)