User talk:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog - Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia
• 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Longhair\^talk 05:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please only use minor (m) edits when you are only correcting a minor spelling or grammaticial error in a Wikipedia article which does not change, reduce, or expand the meaning, context, or voice of an article. In recent edits (see: Ochota_massacre) you have made substantial additions to articles and flagged the edits as "minor." This is incorrect. Please see: Help:Minor edit. Pollenberg (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Welcome aboard, Cap'n! I appreciate your pitching in with clean-up edits on the Zivia Lubetkin page. You're welcome to raid my User page for formatting ideas if you like, and if there's any help I can offer, feel free to ask. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, you'll need to post a Speedy-CFR notice at Category:Physician who died in Nazi concentration camps following the directions at the Speedy Renaming page. Nothing can happen until it's properly tagged. Cheers, Cgingold (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think your should study Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles and think what else could be improved. As soon as you decide that everything is O'K, we can go ahead and try the nomination. Both articles look too big, and maybe some sub-articles could be created, although I am not quite sure. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time for that. Good job with Moscow theater hostage crisis! Biophys (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on International response to the Beslan hostage crisis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.) 20:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Beslan school hostage crisis. Thank you. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 20:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

This one was unneeded, the whole drama could be avoided if you would discuss substance of your changes instead. Please re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit, and Alex's polite request above: please be aware that the civility policy is a non-negotiable requirement. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could tone down your language in discussions. -- The Anome (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Generalplan Ost. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Aheadnovel55 (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just a follow up to this. You were referred to WP:AN3, and should be aware. I have closed the request because you were warned after your fourth edit. However, you did violate the policy. Please be more careful in the future and use the article's talk page to try to reach a consensus rather than engaging in edit warring. Remember, that you can be blocked for edit warring even without a technical 3RR violation. --Selket ^Talk 18:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Relax a little. See this link from here. Biophys (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain on talk of that article what needs to be "cleaned up"? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you mean such minor MoS issues, I admit I am not that familiar with them. I'd appreciate it if you could clean up the article from such issues - it is unlikely anyone else will do it soon. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi - I'm not sure why you blanked the contents of this category page, since you didn't leave an edit summary. I'll assume it was a mistake, but please be more careful in future. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 02:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Moved to main. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

It isn't sufficient to categorize only the main article. Nearly all categories have at least one parent category, and there's no reason why this one should be different. Please revert your deletion. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are removing categories, for example in two last edits. Can you please explain what you are doing? Thanks.Biophys (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I mean this for example. It seems that all parent cats were good.Biophys (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Movin' to the maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain articles. Nothing's lost. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Of course main article Beslan_school_hostage_crisis was properly categorized as belonging to Category:Beslan_school_hostage_crisis. But the Category:Beslan_school_hostage_crisis is a sub-category of several other categories, and you have deleted all parent categories. Could you please have a good rest? Very best wishes,Biophys (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Biophys. Until you understand the difference between a category structure and mentions of a subject in an article, I strongly suggest you stop editing categories, otherwise further controversial edits may be seen as deliberate disruption. You have been told often enough now that you should not be doing what you are doing. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 21:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is a friendly warning. If you revert again you can be blocked. Please see WP:3RR.

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Category:My Lai Massacre. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish culture during World War II? I'd appreciate your comments, and help with copyediting the article. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there any particular reason for which you resurrected the Sheena Fujibayashi article? The decision to merge it with the List of characters in Tales of Symphonia article was almost unanimous. The current consensus among Wiki editors is that it should remain merged. Unless you can convince us otherwise, the article will be reverted to its merged state. Thanks. Patrician Vetinari (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

When you are merging one page into another, you should not tag the page for deletion nor blank the page. The proper procedure is to redirect the page. --- RockMFR 21:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reverting all that guy's additions. It seems the best solution in the circumstances. I checked out one of his references (in Russian) and, as far as I can tell, it says the exact opposite of what he claims in the material he added. Judging by his user page, we're dealing with WP:SOAPBOX here. Oh, and he's got a nerve asking for a cite for material which is clearly referenced at the end of the paragraph to a reliable, published source. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

First can you please not attack me, second of all, I've spent an hour writing based on several literature for example of the wartime insurgency in Chechnya, the Russo-Chechen conflict of titular nationlities of the ChIASSR, and the ethnic cleansing of the 300,000 non-Chechen population in the early 1990s by Chechens. All of this was refrenced. Instead of pointing out complete issues you have reverted everything without an entry into the talk page if and if this happens one more time, this goes straight to the WP:AN/I, there is a difference between vandalous and sourced additions. --Kuban Cossack 10:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Now I have acted in good faith resisted the urge to revert, yet you are still not participating in the talk page discussion, even though I've saved you the effort of starting the section, on how to fix the article's history part that is presently written only from one source (effectively copypasted) --Kuban Cossack 10:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

To Captain Obvious: I imagine you and I are the "two arrogant editors" referred to here:[1]. Just a heads-up.--Folantin (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain why you removed the small amount of sourced material I added? Also, where does the claim "they refer to themselves as Nokhchii meaning 'Noah's people'" come from? It's certainly not in Jaimoukha. It sounds like folk etymology. In fact, it seems to be from a fringe source, Khasan Baksayev, of the Research Centre of the Nokhchii Latt Islam movement, who claimed Chechen had been spoken by Adam and Noah [2] --Folantin (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's kind of "common knowledge". Last month Kadyrov even launched a "Noah's Ark" festival in Chechnya, guess why. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, but according to the source I gave it is only folk etymology (and pretty recent folk etymology at that). So we shouldn't have it as a "fact". --Folantin (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

But seriously, Noh is "Nox" in Chechen. This what it means. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Such coincidences are amazingly common between languages (especially as far as monosyllables are concerned). The source I quoted above says that the etymology of Nokhchi disputed "before the war" "but no one traced it to the Biblical patriarch Noah" until Baksayev came along. --Folantin (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nokchii / Noah

As the descendents of Noah dispersed, the language and religious traditions gradually shifted. A number of societies trace their ancestry back to the descendents of Noah. Magog, a grandson of Noah, is regarded by present-day Chechens to be the ancestor of one of the Black Sea tribes that split after the Black Sea flood, with some moving north of the Black Sea, and others settling in the area north of the Caspian Sea. [3]

On another occasion, on a visit to France, Dudayev amazed his hosts with a new version of the story of Noah’s Ark, in which the Ark landed in the mountains of Chechnya and Noah and his family were the direct ancestors of the Vainakhs. Mankind, therefore, owed its salvation from the Flood to the Chechens. “I can’t say how much he believed it himself, but he spoke with the conviction of a man who knows mysteries that are concealed from others,” Abubakarov says (1998: 17).(Chechnya: Life in a War-Torn Society: Door Valeriĭ Aleksandrovich Tishkov)

This might help. - Pieter_v (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Russians, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Stop this revert war. Before jumping on the Russians Contribution To Humanity section, go delete it in English people who have a section under the same name, and Ashkenazi Jews who have an achievments sections. In other words, you the clame "Poles dont have it" doesn't work here. Revert waring is a reason to block, as you can see people oppose to you doing it, which means that you dont have any right to do it. Wikipedia works on agreement, and it's agreed this section stayes. Log in, log out (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

English people don't have this too. It was a really silly lie, you know? Just a click away. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

So they deleted it. Ashkenazi Jews still have an achievments one. And you still cant decide on your own to delete a whole section only because you dont like it. I checked it and those people existed, and realy did what they did. It's referenced. It will be nice if every nation would have this section. Anyway. delete it? You wont, belive me. Change the name to Achievments? Start a discussion. Log in, log out (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since nobody has bothered to inform you of this (as they should have done), just a note to tell you you are now featuring on WP:ANI [4]. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

  You wrote on the Talk:Russians your own political views, which dont have enything to do with the article. Wikipedia is not a forum, and i you want to experiment go to the sandbox. Thank you. Log in, log out (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please note that "Log in, log out" was banned as a sock of a banned user. So, you can delete all his comments on your talk page if you wish.Biophys (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Battle of Okinawa, you will be blocked from editing. Also note that edit summaries such as this are not enough, and that writing WTF can be considered impolite.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 21:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is: 1. half off-topic (POWs in the section about civilians)

2. the rest is anecdotal-style white-wash of the Japanese suicide order at the time there is a huge scandal in Japan (see the article). Note that it is pro-Imperial-military lobby losing the Japanese courts, and they don't even bring this "we were right, the barbarians were raping and torturing left and right so we just out our people out of misery" argument. The bulk of casualties is because the Japanese military starved civilians, used them as human shields, killed them outright, and told them to kill themselves.

The Americans were good guys here and in general they did spare the population as much as they could (just like they did not run a rampage in Japan, Imperial Army-style, after Japan surrendered). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I tend to agree with the points you're making, but you are doing yourself no favours by swearing in the discussions on the article's talk page - this is uncivil behaviour, and not needed. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Okinawa. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you please use edit summaries to explain the changes you're making? Given that the content of this article is currently under discussion, it is important that other editors be able to easily track what's changed. Thanks, Nick Dowling (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

As long as we're asking, how about making one or two larger edits with all your changes included as opposed to making a flurry of edits that swamp the edit history? Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I removed the Cleanup tag for the time being, simply because there wasn't any indication of what you think needs work. Feel free to reinstate it but please add some more specific tags in the article or start a discussion on the Talk page. Thanks! Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering why you removed the World War II films category from the Defiance (2008 film) page. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Holocaust_films --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry. I don't see the reason there. Just a link. Could you explain further? Are you saying that the film, if included in the Holocaust category, should not be included in the WW2 cat as well? --Stuthomas4 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Would you care to proffer an explanation? --Stuthomas4 (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Lurk moar. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Clever insult but that doesn't explain the revert. No offense but I see that on previous occasions you've made other sarcastic remarks and failed to explain edits. Looking at your edit history it seems you're a well informed contributor but failing to be collaborative doesn't help the community. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cat:Holocaust films is a subcat of Cat:WWII films. WP:CAT states that an article should not simultaneously be in a cat and its parent cat. So Captain Obvious is right on this one. Although it would have been better for him to explain that rather than what he did. - Revolving Bugbear 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

What part of Major changes (addition/removal of sections) must be proposed here first as a courtesy to other editors. did you not understand when doing this including the removal of POV tags which I have placed with Papa's conscent.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

So you are saying that irregardless of what the admin said you decide how the article is run. See WP:OWN. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, owned. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just rolled back a couple of your comments at Talk:Chechen people by mistake. I've put them back straight away - sorry! Papa November (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

They have no bearing on the characters and violate WP:GAMEGUIDE. They're just long winded descriptions of stages that the characters appeared in and that's it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh noes. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

"except this was badly written and copied from somewhere" - If you haven't noticed, they're verbatim text bits from the games for the most part. And how does it help anyone to understand a character to know where they happened to randomly fight in some certain game and the layout of said area? Take it up with the video game project if you want proof, the stage descriptions were already mentioned to be unnecessary back when the Yoshimitsus were merged.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The type of language used in this edit summary rarely calms the situation down. As an uninvolved editor who will refrain from taking sides on the merits (though I do agree with you about the dispute tag you chose to add), I ask you politely to consider dialing the language down a notch, no matter the situ. BusterD (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --FilmFan69 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

High, I just came here to say that I removed your recent edit from the Battle of Thermopylae. Firstly, both armies lost 1/4 of their troops, and state your reasons with references, if you have any. Finally, another user had put Pyrrhic a long time ago, most users agreed it was wrong, so don't. Feel free to comment me anytime, anyways, thanks for understanding.--Ariobarza (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talkReply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Nangar Khel, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

No U. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You should provide a reason for removing the material which seems to be cited properly. --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Explain please. Skomorokh 15:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2008 Xinjiang attack. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

You do know that you can renominate it if you really want someone else to look at it? naerii 12:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see you’ve changed the figures in the infobox here; do you have a source for them?
I know the article has no references, but I don’t know that your unsubstantiated figures are any better than the unsubstantiated figures that were already there.
Can you say where they came from? Otherwise it’d be better to go back to the original. I’ve left a note on the talk page; do you want to reply there?
Xyl 54 (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are you dense or something? 20,000 + 4,500 ("4.500") = 24,500. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have shown a continuing pattern of rude remarks and repeated violations of WP:CIV Please try to show some etiquette.--FilmFan69 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmFan69 (talk • contribs)

I notice that the article War in South Ossetia (2008) is currently escalating into an edit war. Keep in mind that we have a rule that forbids reverting other editors more then three times. Also, please discuss the issue on the talk page of the article, or contact the other editor in question.

As an independent observer, i would suggest that a bit of both edits are kept. The killed people on the Russian side are indeed referred to as 'Peacekeepers', not only in the sources but also in the rest of the article. At the same time, i would say "Firing between the countries. Ossetian previously stated demand of independence. Georgian government wanting to completely kill the Ossetian autonomy." should not be included in the article, as this is indeed major PoV. Just one of the possible suggestions, but at least call of the reveert war. One war is enough :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your right, but if you ask an Ossetian he will clearly say what you propose is a POV. Because they clearly say that this war cant be blamed wy them wanting independence, because they waited for the peace talk. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The problem is the war start picture is still obscure. I got the impression Ossetians truly hoped the peacetalks will work. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but remember that most things sayd by Ossetians, Russians and Georgians would all be WP:BIAS at this time. Even your comment here contains a bias, even if you would not recognize it as such. From your point of view, the Ossetians can't be blamed for the war. Yet i am completely sure that if i asked someone on the other side of the battlefield, i would get a story about them provoking the attack.

See that i am aiming at? A point of view is someones own opinion on a matter. But for the article, it does not even matter who is right and who is wrong. Only facts should be listed, and readers should then draw their own conclusions based upon the information provided. :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you want us to add "Ossetians claim"... "While Georgians clame". I wont object. In that case we wont insult anybody. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have to admit i am not exactly a writer. Most of my time is spend checking nice articles against the WP:CSD criteria, and the few articles i made myself were static technical topics that contained no bias. However, adding comments such as "Ossetians claim" or "Excirial sayd" would at least list the source where the claim comes from. This is actually one of the reasons why Wikipedia demands sources for articles, especially on the ones that might contain a lot of PoV.

Also, make sure that both sides gain equal attention this way; As long as the claims from both sides are even and sourced, there should not be much PoV as both sides are heard. Regardless, keep the amount of such comments to a minimum. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia focusing on facts, and not an opinion (WP:NOTOPINION) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, guys, get out of here. Thi is not war room. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, i just stoped by to say "hi". So, Hi. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Captain Obvious :). I tend to synchronize conversations from my own talk page with the talk pages of people involved. While you are not technically discussing, it was about a subject that regarded you Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed your very active in the named article so I approach you for help. I have provided information regarding the bombing of Vaziani which was accomplished by fighters taking off from the Russian military base in Armenia (102nd Military Base) I provided a objective source but some members keep removing it and give no reason. Could you perhaps keep an eye on this for me? As I have to go now. Many thanks Baku87 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'm leaving too. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the future, please try to use better edit summaries. I thought this edit was questionable, as you removed what I thought was relevant info with no summary. Superm401 - Talk 08:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Be careful. In this edit you mixed up 2007 and 2008 events. Superm401 - Talk 09:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.--Oneiros (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please stop violating 3RR rule, you've reverted 8 (!) times at this moment. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Scroll down the article. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

And what? All the information in infobox is in article. Let's remove the box! --Alexander Widefield (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

.

Next time leave an edit summary for important edits. Your removal of sourced and aesthetically positive content was reverted.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

oh, I see you have a history of such things. No problem, then, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is the best damn thng on wikipedia - seriously. Viridae^Talk 04:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Edit summaries are not optional.^{[citation needed]} You have just made at least 7 edits to 2008 South Ossetia war without an edit sumamry. That is a major hassle to editors trying to review changes. You've been warned before about this. Please stop, or you'll be blocked. Superm401 - Talk 05:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actualy edit summaries are optional. It is polite to use them when makign substantial changes however. Viridae^Talk 05:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, they're not optional for major changes. See Wikipedia:Edit summaries. The guideline is "Always fill in the summary field." (it doesn't even distinguish between major and minor). Superm401 - Talk 05:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

No they are optional - that is a reccomendation in a help file, not a policy. Viridae^Talk 07:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah? And WHO WAS RIGHT regarding infobox (right above)? I know what I'm doing. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

It might be useful for you to include edit summaries when making large changes, for example here [5]. Thanks. 92.12.158.246 (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please explain why you reverted my well-sourced edits. Naurmacil (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

What edits? Please re-install if correct. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

See the talk page of the article. Under section "Rewrote lead". Let's discuss the edits there. Thanks. Naurmacil (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you please explain why did you deface the article on Battle_of_Tskhinvali? What did I put in there to make you do so? Why are you blocking me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.234.21.63 (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

What is your problem? Stop destroying the article Battle of Tskhinvali. You may not like the facts but there they are. And your complaints about the genocide section are unfounded, do you think the Russians would lie about something like that. What? Did 2,000 people just vanish like that overnight? (Top Gun)

It's NOT FACTS, it's UNCONFIRMED PROPAGANDA TALES. Where do you have the source for "2,000 people", "vanishing overnight" or not? HRW? UN? Oh, I know - war propaganda. Sorry, no bonus. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are obviously pro-Georgian, and there is no place for editors that cann't put their own point of view aside. I am neither for the Russians or the Georgians. I am looking on the situation as a third party and you should stop this or I will be forced to report you to a Wikipedia administrator. Again these are facts not propaganda, every mayor TV station is reporting that 2,000 people have been killed and you don't belive it? Something is very wrong with you.(Top Gun)

You can not edit Wikipedia in this manner just removing large sections of an article that has been covered with citations and references. At least you should discuss it first with other editors before making such large edits to an article, which you have not, and by the looks of it nobody supports your claims of propaganda.(Top Gun)

"The Georgian snipers keep firing at vehicles transporting the wounded to the hospitals of South Ossetia", said Irina Glagoleva, a spokeswoman for the South Ossetia government.

Not propaganda?

"The women and children in Tskhinvali suffer from thirst. The city has not had any access to water, gas, electricity for 3 days. The cell phones are losing power. The Georgian snipers shoot anyone who tries to get out into the street", reports the OSInform News Agency.[29] (offical separatist agency)

Not propaganda?

The South Ossetia Secretary of State Konstantin Kochiyev told the REGNUM News Agency, "The situation in the Republic of South Ossetia has changed to a catastrophe during the past two days. The city of Tskhinvali no longer exists. The number of dead is uncountable, there seem to be thousands. How many more have been tortured to death by the Georgian aggressors is hard to imagine. This cannot be forgiven. The atrocities of the Georgian troops are beyond measure. South Ossetia will never forgive what has happened to our people. There are many dead bodies of Georgian soldiers and broken vehicles both on the outskirts of Tskhinvali and near its center. Today and last night, the Ossetian fighters continued defending the territory, but the enemy doesn't stop. Our forces are running out. We're waiting for Russia to support. It's not even about hours, it's about minutes."'[citation needed]

Not propaganda?

The Central Committee of Information and Press of South Ossetia reported on August 10 that eight small towns (or villages) in South Ossetia were leveled and their defenders massacred. As Ilona Dzhoyeva, a 19-year-old student and a resident of the village of Dmenes, said, "The Georgian aircraft bombed the houses of civilians, and then the soldiers came in shooting elders, women and children point-blank... The running people were shot on sight, the wounded were finished off by shots in the head. Only a few of us managed to escape from our village... We got to the position of the Russian peacekeepers and they brought us to safety... "[28]

Not propaganda?

During the meeting with Russia' Prime Minister Vladimir Putin the South Ossetian refugees reported that "in the Znaur region, the Georgians burned up a few young women in their home... We've seen a Georgian tank run over an old lady running away with two children... We've seen a one-and-a-half-year-old baby knived by a Georgian soldier" [27]

Not propaganda?

The South Ossetian spokesmen repeatedly accused the Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili of genocide,[26] whereas eyewitnesses and survivors speaking on Russian TV channels referred to the event as "a massacre, not a military operation".

Not propaganda?

What you call propaganda, then? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Propaganda or not both sides stories have to be put into the article not just the story of one side. You are trying to put in the story of the Georgians only and cover up that the city has been destroyed.(Top Gun)

Propaganda PERIOD and what? Where am I "trying to put in the story of the Georgians only and cover up that the city has been destroyed"? Point it exactly. It's here. If you fail to do this, you are a dirty liar. Deal? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

One clarification: "Some 60 civilians were reportedly killed in the bombing when several apartment blocks were hit." were not added by me (see the previous version) and is not in the source article. I'd remove this now. Actually, my original (worderd by me) version is here and the rest was not my input except expanding links to source and date. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I noted you on yourt talk page. Now I give you one day to recall your "cover up" claims, or you're offically a little silly dirty liar. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Tskhinvali. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. __meco (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why didn't you send this to Top Gun, too? Especially since I just said I stopped? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was sent to Top Gun. Check his talk page. 70.131.218.57 (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)ShaneReply

As the anonymous contributor rightly informs you, I placed the same cautionary message on the talk page of the other party. Anyway, This is not to say that you have crossed the line, merely to remind you that you're standing on it. __meco (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from insulting other editors. That is not allowed on Wikipedia. Thank you. (Top Gun)