User talk:HistoricWarrior007

/Archive 1

IMPORTANT READ BEFORE POSTING!!!

Alright, dump your message here and I'll reply. However I do not like annoying people, so if you've said something once, wait for me to respond before repeating it again in another variation. Also, please don't make the same argument, over and over and over and over and over again. See how silly that sounds? Also, I have a hectic schedule, so if I don't reply to you right away, it doesn't mean that I don't like you, or anything like that, but just that something more important, like say a major project or a date with a girl is coming up. Or comedy night. Or a guys' night out. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Attention Editors Who Think I'm Evil and Biased!!!

If you don't think I'm evil and biased, go ahead and skip to the next section. Recently I have been accused by two users of being "biased" and "baselessly attacking" them. Yet they gave no information on where I was being "biased", and where I "baselessly attacked" them. If you think I'm evil and biased, then post here, and I'll either factually prove you incorrect, using actual evidence and that thingy called logical reasoning, or I'll apologize and withdraw my statements. After all, this is a talk page, let's engage in encyclopedic debates, and not throw meaningless jargon around. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Be careful that you don't break WP:3RR

Please read the policy. Grey Fox (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything, just added info. But thank you for mentioning it Mr. Grey Fox. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia plot summary about video game as relates Russia-Georgia conflict cited in major magazine!

I just wanted to say thank you. I asked to remove the ad, which morally offended me, in the section, and you did. It stayed that way not very long, but that still made a difference for me. I'm sorry that, as a result, it got you under Xeeron's fire. I think that you were right, and his attack was unjustified. But, thank you, again. I appreciate, that there is someone, who understands that ads should have nothing to do with war and death. 212.192.164.14 writing from 217.8.236.137 (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Meh, don't worry about Xeeron, we were bound to get into it eventually - we're on the opposite sides on this issue. Don't be sorry, I knew what I was getting into when I made that edit :D People like you and me have to be able to withstand that kind of shit, cause we have the facts right, and the only way that they can win, is to get us to be all emotional and then kick us out. So I'm used to that old trick. I'm just in general pissed off about how the war was handled in the media: Georgians shot at Russians, the Russians fired back and won; sign the damn peace treaty and get on with your lives. Shish, how difficult can that be? Although I gotta admit, Wikipedia does provide the laughs :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i know what you mean. When one engages into such, er... polarized discussions, he gotta expect retaliative strikes of every kind on every front. Yet, i hoped it won't happen. What can i say, i'm one hell of a naive man. =) "pissed off" doesn't properly describe what i'm feeling about this whole affair. But we'll be able to withstand it. Nerves-o-Stainless-Steel. Hot heart, clean hands, cold mind, etc. =) Considering possible revival of rename discussion, we gotta need that. No one kicks you and me out. Cheers. 212.192.164.14 writing from 217.8.236.161 (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I get my inspiration from this, a personal story: I was in one of these Internet Debate thingies, like a live-chatroom debate. And during the debate, one person was talking about how correct Kosovo was in seceding and stuff. It was very much onesided. Then I began asking not very nice question: "Do you condone burning Churches? If not, why are you supporting the bombing of a civillian city to burn churches? Cause that's exactly what happened in Kosovo. Wake up people!" That phrase alone changed the debate, but I've done that countless times, it wasn't a big deal for me. After the debate, that's when it hit me: I got an e-mail that said: "I was thinking about suicide ever since we lost Kosovo, I was about to kill myself, and then I saw your comment, thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I e-mailed the girl back. Turns out she wasn't kidding, she came to my hometown, and we hung out and had a blast. When she left, I could feel that I've changed her life forever. Wasn't the first time something like this happened, I am guessing it won't be the last. That's what gives me strenght, not the nerves of steel.

On a side note, I also get a mini-kick out of informing arrogant and rather clueless "editors" that they are not at all intelligent. Go to the Kosovo Wiki Article - Discussion Section, and check out the 'ICJ_case' discussion. That's what I call creaming, and it has nothing to do with ice cream :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Man. I have no words. Just deep respect. The closest i've ever been to personal interest in any war is being friends with a girl, who has friends among Beslan hostages. Fortunately, i think, because i'm not sure, that i'd be capable of changing someone's life to better, like you did. That requires moral strength, compassion and comforting skills, which i don't have. Better leave such responsible and subtle matter to those who do. If it happens, i'll of course try nevertheless, but still... At least i hope i have the nerves-o-steel. I think they are still required, so one will stay calm in discussion, no matter how much he think he is right and they're wrong, because i believe, that calm stating of facts convinces better than heated argument. I believe many westerners take heated arguments as one of the signs of russian fanaticism and measure of degree of hate and hystery, to which "russian propaganda" boiled russians' minds. Yet some of them tend to miss the same signs in themselves, i.e. they think that their righteous anger acquired by listening to their "neutral media" is perfectly valid and acceptable. Of course, they're minority, but it's mostly them with whom we have to deal with. But let alone deficiencies of this imperfect world. I bet there are plenty of people who need support, you'll surely meet them and do your best for them, i have no doubt. And speaking of ICJ_case, i'm very interested but i've failed to find it, will you please provide the linkie? 212.192.164.14 (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC) PS. I didn't get your "creaming" hint, is there something i should know about english language? =) 212.192.164.14 (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You have moral strenght and compassion. Comforting skills I cannot really comment on, cannot tell that from the posts alone.

Beslan was just messed up. The people who did it lost the extreme majority of international support afterwards, so in a sick way it helped Russia. I hate terrorists, just wussies who go after civillians, too scared to take on the actual military.

I think you should give it a try on the responsible and subtle matter, everyone fucks up - the winners are those who learn from the fuckups and grow stronger as a result.

The problem with the West and Russia, is that there's a difference in the style of the media. The West believes in Freedom of Speech, but it's hard for the Western Corporate Media Readers to tell the lies apart from the truth. Just look at the 2000 Florida election, 2003 Iraqi War, Hurricane Katrina, the hurricane that hit Galveston, etc. The Western Media would rather publish 10 b/s articles, then not publish 1 good article. The Russian Media is different - they censor themselves quite a bit. They're the exact opposites, they'd rather kill off 10 good articles, then let 1 b/s article hit the press. The Russian Green Party's handling of the Kamchatkan Crisis, successful handling I should add, was not reported. So there's a difference in style. There's also, in addition to the stylistical problem, the image problem. Russia's Media is very nacent and inexperienced. The US Media is divided into 6 major, experienced corporations. Thus it's easy to portray the Russian Media as an extension of Pravda, especially due to the heavy self-censorship of the Russian Media.

The other problem is that standard attack tactics have been developed and widely used by the Western Media, whereas the Russian Media doesn't know what they're doing half the time. RT's poor handling of William Dunbar was just one example. If you cannot attack the argument, you attack the user. If that fails, then you try to bait the user into a completely different discussion, thus taking his focus off the main argument; then you tell him to focus on the main argument and not sidetrack, thus 'winning' the debate. Then there's the double-bait - where you see the bait, make a look like you'll take it, then pull back at the last minute and let the other guy fall into your trap. As for me, I just debate the arguments where I know I have the facts on my side, and simply avoid the traps. Occasionally is someone really annoys me, by constantly debating dirty, I'll set up a trap for him/her. I don't like doing it, but for a cleaner debate, I'll do it.

Now onto the ICJ Case, and how to point out to an "editor" that being too arrogant and a prick is a bad thing, without getting into trouble with Wikipedia. One of my least favorite articles here are the pro-Kosovo articles, where pro-Kosovo editors, due to sheer numbers and a well engineered Fox News backed media campaign they get to get away with everything. The problem now is that Fox News is losing viewership in the United States, and must re-focus their efforts back home, so they've left the pro-Kosovo editors on their own. Resources are limited and even Bill O'Rielly cannot be at four places at once. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#ICJ_case You can see the difference in class between Beam's and Colchium's comments, (I wonder how Xeeron, Elysander, Grey Fox, et al. would respond if I made similar comments in the 2008 South Ossetia War Article) but you can see the arrogance: "No it mustn't!" Do you ever enjoy a sporting competition where a cocky team takes on a really good team? Isn't it fun to watch? Well anyways, with no further adiue - here's how that debate ended:

"It is not an opinion on Kosovo's independence, it is merely an address to the ICJ, which doesn't merit inclusion in the intro. Wait a year or so, and then we will see. Colchicum (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Official UN Article Title (from UN News Centre):"UN World Court to give opinion on legality of Kosovo’s independence"

Colchium's response: "It is not an opinion on Kosovo's independence"

I'm confused! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well since no one wants to explain to me why the ICJ Case should not be included in the article - go ahead and include it. It's been well over 48 hours. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)"

Ain't it lovely? BTW - that's what I call creamed. I think you can figure out the meaining of the word form that Context. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

=D ROFL, LOL, and any other expression of joy you can imagine. I've read the ICJ Case. That really was a little ray of sunshine, which made my day. =) But let it be ordered.

Thanks for that moral strength and compassion remark. But i'd rather think that i don't have them and maybe someday it'll turn out that i do, than think i'm such a knight in shining armor and then turns out i'm not, you know what i mean? Hmm. That bears some resemblance to what you've said about russian media. You might be right on that one, nobody here likes those loudmouths, who hasten to say something without taking responsibility for their words and checking their facts first. You, at least, have to admit your mistakes and try to improve, or you'll get your word to quickly drop in value, and amount of public respect for you to irrecoverably converge to zero. And you've portrayed the Freedom of Speech the way i imagined it - barely any responsibility whatsoever. But i guess i'm too quickly jumping to a conclusions here.

"I think you should give it a try on the responsible and subtle matter, everyone fucks up - the winners are those who learn from the fuckups and grow stronger as a result."

You see? Just as i've told - no matter who needs support, you'll provide it. =D But the talk here is not about regular girls, or smth. I'm talking about dealing with those people, who are seriously affected by some gross event. Imagine dealing with a girl from Beslan: you've got to bring her back to a normal life, what would you do? Be too cold with her - and you won't succeed. A bit too warm - and you may get a fully fledged love, which, in worst case, can turn out to be sincere from her side only, result in nasty breakup and you'll be leaving the matters even worse, than they were before you dared to start messing with something you can't really predict or control - the other human being. And that's just only one of the ways it could go horribly wrong. Naturally, i'll "learn from the fuckup and grow stronger". I didn't have something like Beslan to make me fragile. But who cares about me - what about her? A suicide attempt? Passed are these times, when i believed that good intentions alone is enough for making good. You've got to know what you do, and there is no right for an error, that's why i'd rather leave it to natural-born professionals, unless there will be no other way. Or maybe one becomes unable to do it, from the very moment one starts to think about it as of a profession or a job, who knows?

Dirty tricks and double traps... Strangely enough, it seems like that kind of side-tracking trap gotta be damn obvious for anyone who have more than one digit in his IQ(in decimal notation, mind you). Yet you see people using them and getting caught into them everywhere. When i see one set up against me, it gets me nothing more than disgusted. When i first came here, i thought that in the Wikipedia of all places is where you won't see such things in discussions. The Fortress of Knowledge and all, y'know. What can i say? Can only repeat - i'm one hell of a naive man. =) Never did something like that here, and hope it won't become necessary. Yeah, i'm naive, i've told you, remember?? =))

About the ICJ. Think i get, what "creaming" is. Never seen it be so funny. =) But technically the guy had a point - it still is not an opinion, it's just a promise of opinion. And as i see, you've posted "go ahead" just now, so, on your place, i wouldn't be holding my hopes high yet - the guy still can wake up. Yet i look at the new intro, and it doesn't seem to be out of place at all. But you gotta be careful, the matter is fresh, and by posting about it on your talk page you can attract unwanted attention from your, er... for lack of a better word, ideological opponents. They won't win, of course, but a total waste of your time is absolutely guaranteed. You might consider removing the link, or even all of this conversation, to avoid stupid POVed accusations in the future. Consider even printing it out and eating the paper, just to be sure. =) In fact, it was very interesting for me to talk with you. One of these days, i might have asked something like what's your name, where are you from, etc. And by "one of these days" i mean the day, when you and me won't have to be worried, that it'll return to you as someone pointing on your post and screaming "You see, he is bad some nationality! And he comes from bad some country, too! There is absolutely no point in talking with him!", like someone had already tried to. But this day, certainly, hasn't come. Sorry, i broke WP:BEAN. See ya. 212.192.164.14 writing from 217.8.236.149 (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This is my talk page. As long as there are no personal attacks here, all is welcome! One cannot get in trouble for discussing stuff on his own talk page. I know I have many ideological opponents, but it doesn't matter, when editing Wiki Articles they have to argue against my factually based arguments, not my ideology. If everyone had my ideology, there'd be no wars, universal education (not just literacy rates), clean power, and humans would be building a colony on the Moon. I mostly participate on the talk pages, and make few edits. And I'm kinda tired of 'living in fear' watching what I say on my own talkpage, being afraid that it'll get me into trouble. Fuck that! (Fuck fear, not Wiki!) Wikipedia rules allow user talkpages to be freely governed. I'd have this conversation with you on another talk page - IF it was relevant. Also, I already warned a user for using the "you see he comes from bad country" doing that is against Wikipedia rules. As for the Beslan Girl - if you love her, go for it, if not - then tell her she's an amazing person, and deserves better and that you're not ready for a relationship with her, but will be her friend. And then take her to party. Make sure's she's not drunk though. The Beslan Girl case, is special; however in most cases there's room for error. You should've seen my early debates. Let's just say that I'm lucky to have the quality to laugh at myself, while reading those debates.

As for the ICJ remark, his argument was that it was irrelevant, my argument was that it was relevant. That I believe I argued correctly. As for the US Media - the problem here is that the liars know it, and they brainwash viewers through repetition, i.e. "CNN - the most trusted name in news" or "Fox News - Fair and Balanced". And the sad part is, as long as the economy is doing fine, people actually believe that bullshit. But when CNN/Fox News report that the economy is healthy - and there's a mini-crash, then people get suspicious. Other networks have to compete, and the media is a vicious cycle of corporate competition, that's what's it has become. There must be balance, a strictly regulated media, Independant of the state. Solzhenitsyn's wonderful on that subject. The Media's not allowed to post libel or brainwashing types of news. I mean Pravda - to imply that everything in your paper is the truth is just poor journalism.

As for the dirty tricks - they work. Most of the Wikipedia Editors who use them, do so poorly. But on the Big Screen - they work wonderfully, just watch the O'Rielly Factor. Or Glenn Beck. You just need professionals, who perfect their art everyday. Of course then you get someone like Steven Colbert to take down Bill O'Rielly. It's beautiful to watch, youtube it. The problem here is that most people haven't taken journalism classes, or haven't been in enough debates. Falling for tricks doesn't require a low IQ, that's where I must disagree with you, but it requires inexperience. The problem is that there's only so many of the dirty tricks available, and most have been used for quite a while, (the Athenian Debates in the 5th century B.C. said that "if you cannot win on the facts - attack the personality of the debator") so to discount tricks alltogether is dangerous. As for their arguments - I've read the pro-Kosovo "editors" - possibly the most inexperienced on Wikipedia - if they want to accuse me, I will have my fun. You may wish to brows the "North Kosovo" Wikipedia article discussion section, for your entertain... err educational needs. Also, they may call on my POV - but I merely quoted the UN. And besides, without a little risk, life can get boring. No one has replied yet. Also, I'm experimenting, dabbling and relaxing from my regular work on Wikipedia. If people want to argue against my posts, fine, but if they use anything on this talkpage to accuse me of PoV more then 3 times, they're outta here. You should create your own Wikipedia Page - takes like 10 minutes to do. And there's no cost involved. I was surprised at how easy it was when I created mine. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"One cannot get in trouble for discussing stuff on his own talk page." Yeah maybe, but i recall wikipedia states something like "your talk page is not your talk page" meaning "you should discuss relevant-to-wikipedia-improvement matters". But maybe i'm wrong on that. Just don't have the time to reinvestigate it.

"you see he comes from bad country" is against Wikipedia rules? Which one is it? WP:NPA? But it can be used not just as a lame argument. One editor can just say something like "like in your home country some country", and many otherwise good editors will enter "this badass won't convince me" mode. Knowing where are you from, may prevent some people from seeing reasonableness of your arguments, or oppose you no matter what you say, just because. I'm not afraid of it, but i prefer to avoid it.

About the girl. Your advice is good, and is generally applicable to any girl. I can say "Let's be friends". But she already has friends. What can i really do for her from a position of a friend? You must understand, that she got an experience, which i didn't, and hopefully won't. She got such a shift in world perception, that other people look like aliens to her. In some ways we'll never understand each other. As i've heard recently, these former Beslan hostage kids are still traveling around in packs and are afraid to separate for more that fifteen minutes. How possibly can i amend that? What can i do for the girl, so she will forever forget this experience and following perpetual fear? And from the position of a friend? Using my poor knowledge of psychology I can imagine only two ways: get such experience myself, then demonstrably dismiss it's seriousness along with the phrases like "You can't live with that forever", "This will never happen again", "Don't let it break you", "Life is wonderful thing", and otherwise lead an example of how to recover from that. That way is unavailable for me. Or i can be something more than just a friend, try to protect her and care about her, and let her to get used to feeling herself secure. But even these simple plans may not work or even go wrong at any point. Honestly, it's a delicate matter. Very difficult, compared, for example, to recovering a girl who has a relative recently died. I think your advice applies more to that kind of problems. But let's spare the talk. It's not like i've seen any Beslan girl with my own eyes, so my talk is nothing more than a pointless speculation.

"If everyone had my ideology, there'd be no wars, universal education (not just literacy rates), clean power, and humans would be building a colony on the Moon." The thoughts of about every other man on the planet. =D But i guess you are right.

It's hard to make independent media. How can it be possible? International financing? But among all countries there always will be those which will invest more. And you can do nothing to avoid bribery and intimidation of individual journalists. The idea looks like another utopia for me. But speaking of Solzhenitsyn, which one was the book, where he described this idea? It's just a real shame that i've read many books in my life, but his ones weren't among them. Truth be told, i've never been interested in politics till i entered South Ossetia war discussion. So looks like i've got to catch up now.

"to imply that everything in your paper is the truth is just poor journalism." Hear hear. But believing in everything you hear from media must be made a crime nevertheless. =) 212.192.164.14 (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that you can get into trouble for a discussion such as this. Even if it happens, it'll mostly be a warning, but again, I highly doubt that. Plus I believe that more camraderie amongst debaters would lead to an improvenment for Wikipedia :D Don't worry, if you get me into trouble, I'll let ya know - I'm very vocal on that stuff. As for the country rule - I somehow doubt that will apply to me, considering that I've traveled quite a bit. Haven't been to Australia yet though. Plus I can usually find a common language with most open-minded editors, and the close minded ones, why does it matter? As for Independent Media - here's a look at a very, very pessimistic independent journalist - he was great until he became a fucking pessimists, still has great articles though: www.exiledonline.com It's rare to find though. Truly Independant Media gets money from their subscribers not the advertisers. As for making stupidity a crime - I agree - just remove all the warning labels, such as "fire is hot don't touch".

As to the girl and the experience: I think time cures everything. Ten years ago I was suicidal. Quite literally. Today I am deciding when to go to Australia. Speaking of the experience, if you want her experience go to Somalia, although trust me, you won't be able to say that line after going through that. No one will. It takes time. Dissolving the packs now would just be stupid. They have to do it on their own, and they can recover. Surviving the initial year was the hardest part for these kids, the Beslan kids, and the ones who did that, for them life will only get better. Why don't you and your friends take the pack fishing? Or skiing? Or a group activity far away from Beslan, I mean Russia's pretty damn big. Don't take them to Moscow - they need a quite place, not a noisy city. Besides, who would say no to skiing? Oh, and if you can, leave your e-mail on this webpage. I know quite a few people who want to help Beslan kids, but don't trust Russian charities, and after the Yeltsin Years, who can blame them? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Don't worry, if you get me into trouble, I'll let ya know - I'm very vocal on that stuff." But by the time you say, damage will already be done. I rather consider it to be somewhat of my duty, to try and predict what possible harm you can get, from me having a pleasure of talking with you. Sorry, calculating gruesome possibilities is a part of my nature. Call me a hardened pessimist, if you like. =) Among such possibilities i deem probable the one, which takes into account that we both are relatively new to wikipedia, and, therefore, may underestimate how nasty can things turn out, if we piss off enough people. And i'd rather prefer not to watch, how SO war article will start mentioning ritual killings of georgians by brutal russian forces of evil, while i'm fenced behind an indef block. :) Undoing crap is harder than not letting it in.

"As for the country rule - I somehow doubt that will apply to me, considering that I've traveled quite a bit. Haven't been to Australia yet though." Oh my god, no way! How come you haven't been to Australia??? You've ruined everything! Nobody will take you seriously now! =)) Joking. But it's not so much of a "country rule" as a "background information rule". It's about heuristical and often fallacious shortcuts in thinking, which are taken by people, when they have any kind of information about you. What's your country, is an example of such information. Which countries you've been to is not quite the same. What really matters is what country you consider to be your home. What country you're associating yourself with. Unless you're one of a true cosmopolitans, which are even more scarce that it may seem from a first sight, such country can be named. And, when it's named, you can expect every kind of related assotiations to work in people minds, while they're processing data they've got from you. Other examples of information, which usually invokes assosiations interfering with normal cognitive process, include nationality, age, gender, previous experience of dealing with you, and pretty much everything else. That's why i prefer not to use an account on wikipedia(which i have, but thank you for an invitation), especially when it comes to controversial topics.

"Plus I can usually find a common language with most open-minded editors, and the close minded ones, why does it matter?" (Here goes my notorious naivety.) Personally, i don't want to give up on anyone. Of course, one cannot expect to be able to convince people every time. But still i like trying. In my imagination, it can make the world better. =) Maybe you can find a common language with most open-minded editors. But it all is not like black and white: there is each and every shade between full mind-openedness and full mind-closedness. Many "close-minded" people may become quite open-minded with time, especially if you were treating them well long enough. I believe, that no man is guilty of who he is or what he's thinking. It's fully determined by external reasons, which are absolutely independent of him. These reasons include: where and to what kind of family you was born; how and in what traditions you've been raised(seriously depends on previous point); where you've travelled, what you've seen, to whom you've been talking and how you've interpreted this experience(directly depends on two previous points), etc. That kind of understanding helps me to stay calm and try and explain. When i have time, i prefer not just making people comply with my demands, but rather making me and them to come to a more universal knowledge, with which we all will unanimously agree.

"As for Independent Media - here's a look at a very, very pessimistic independent journalist - he was great until he became a fucking pessimists, still has great articles though: www.exiledonline.com It's rare to find though." Oh, i liked that one alright. Quite a bit of sarcasm laying behind articles like "The New Cold War’s Premature Ejaculation" and "Young Russian Gopnik professes his love to Sarah Palin" really made me feel better. =)

"Truly Independant Media gets money from their subscribers not the advertisers." And here i continue to see the trouble. Yes, media gets freed from business. But then concurrence among medias will make them try to please their customers. This will lead to every media holding their share of audience, i.e groups separated by opinions they want to hear. There will be a media for those, who'd like to think that they're living in a cold war era; for those, who like to be thrilled by news of impending ecological catastrophe, or, on the contrary, prefer to hear nothing indicating it's possibility, etc. Imagine US Corporate Media disappearing right now to be immediately replaced by this model of journalism. Now, i've never been to America and can't reliably guess, so tell me, how viable will be a news channel, which will start telling Americans, that they were wrong and Russians were right about SO war? How long, do you think, will it take for people there to accept that point of view? Maybe long enough for most of those new channels to decide to uphold the noble traditions of previous point of view, how do you think? All media may become a kind of a yellow press - something that tries to attract customers by catchy and flashy headlines, without filtering them by rational thought. Of course, there will be people, who won't be satisfied by these media performance, and there will be some responsible media for them too. But there's nothing that will make other people to listen to this responsible media - just like right now - people have the internet, which is inherently unbiased, and they can form their independent opinion with it, yet they don't. All in all, it can't be denied that this model of journalism is a step forward, but still it's not an ideal of Truly Independent Media.

"As for making stupidity a crime - I agree - just remove all the warning labels, such as "fire is hot don't touch"." Absolutely agree. But sometimes it can harm innocent too. I wonder, whether you've heard about this anecdotal case: some woman had washed her cat, and then she wanted to make the cat dry, so she put it into a microwave. After committing this atrocity, woman had the nerve to sue the microwave manufacturer because "I wasn't warned about consequences" due to absense of a "Don't dry cats in the microwave" line in the instruction to the device, and had won the case to receive a decent amount of money as a compensation for her moral suffering(or whatever the term is). After that, the manufacturer have included the line in the instruction. It can save many lives of innocent cats, indeed.

"I think time cures everything. Ten years ago I was suicidal. Quite literally." Interesting. Because, as for now, i'm not quite done with that chapter of my biography. Quite literally. Judging by your example, time still have five years for showing me that it can cure that. :)

"Today I am deciding when to go to Australia." That's off my league. Can hardly imagine myself on your place. But then, i've never been so much of a traveller. All of my friends travelled across my Oblast, at the very least. Many of them travelled across Russia. Some travelled to Europe and Asia. Few to US. But I've barely ever been leaving my city. Fishing trips doesn't count. =)

"Speaking of the experience, if you want her experience go to Somalia, although trust me, you won't be able to say that line after going through that. No one will. It takes time." Never thought this to be possible, anyway. It's just that i have some experience of trying to comfort someone else, despite feeling myself just on the right side of catatonia. I remember thinking "you must smile", "brace yourself, you must do it for her" etc. But yeah, whom am i kidding, i don't think i'd have managed it in that case.

"Why don't you and your friends take the pack fishing? Or skiing? Or a group activity far away from Beslan, I mean Russia's pretty damn big." Yeah, Russia in three words - pretty, big and damned. =) But speaking about me and friends taking the pack for an entertainment. I'd certainly love to. But looks like i've misleaded you with my "I know a girl, who has friends among Beslan hostages" and my speculation on how to recover a Beslan girl. I am really really sorry about that. I live in Novosibirsk. It's not like i just have to drive in neighboring town or even Oblast, or something, to meet them. That's half of Russia and Ural mountains to boot separating me and North Ossetia. As i've said before i have little travelling experience, but i think reasonable estimate for this travel will be: about half a month by a train, or a few days with a plane flight, to afford which i'll have to collect money for half a year. Also i'm going through some tough stuff now, which requires my presence, and it's not going to change in the next two years. I really can't help your friends to hand their money to these kids in person, if that's what you were suggesting. Again, i'm very very sorry about that. Forgive me, HistoricWarrior, but i just can't. I'll try to think how to make it possible, maybe some sort of double delegation with people whom i trust, but i cannot promise anything.

"I know quite a few people who want to help Beslan kids, but don't trust Russian charities, and after the Yeltsin Years, who can blame them?" Certainly not me. 212.192.164.14 (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia

That title came up when the 2008 war began. You can check the history: [1]. I added the years because of Disambiguation--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Working with links

I've inserted links in war in SO article. Here is a good guide for working with links, and making them clickable. It makes life easier. Good luck with editing! FeelSunny (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank You! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok

Thanks for the tip

Reneem, thank you for signing your name :P HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war

Hi HistoricWarrior007, thanks for bringing the ISDP to my attention. I have some experience with Svante Cornell with regard to his work on Nagorno-Karabakh and I believe that he is incredibly biased against the new independent republics in the caucasus. What can you do though as its considered a reliable source so its difficult to remove without a very good reason. I'll review the pdf and review the discussion on the talk page. It looks like the wiki article has been locked down for whatever reason. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, my friend. Haven't seen you here for some time. Been worried that something could have happened to you, but looks like you're well and kicking. I hope your life is OK, and it will continue to be that way.

As usual, SO war article is a something to behold. =)) I hadn't enough free time to spare on the article for anything except reading it's talk page, but it was worth it. For example, that "Gangs and South Ossetia militia raped..." case, where some people had to resort to Venn diagrams and other math stuff, was so funny, that i've been laughing to the point of falling under my computer table. =)))) Alas, nearly every aspect of the article's discussions would be very funny, if it wasn't about a war. But you're doing more than OK here, it was a true pleasure for me seeing you proving them being wrong. =))

Skipping to the point of my writing. I saw that Kober wants to discuss THE RENAME for the umpteenth time, so i decided to finally drop in and say 'Hey!'. =) With all Respect i have, Sincerely Yours 212.192.164.14 (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh some interesting things are happening in the International Sphere. Looks like our little Wikipedia Article can become part of International Litigation. That should be fun :D. But yeah the renaming part - yarrrr! I'm sorry I had to dissapear like that. I didn't mean to look like you offended me or anything, just that I got a really nice job offer, and couldn't turn it down. I mean Wikipedia's great, but CanCun is CanCun. And since I left, it looks like the article went into even more insanity. The HRW equated driving with raping, and then wondered why they lost respect. DARWIN! WE NEED YOU! COME BACK! Also, you can't say it on Wikipedia, but if this was a debate, I'd just point out that Kober has been heavily indoctrinated by Saakashvili, just like Xeeron and Narking. And Xeeron's math is da bomb! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Oh some interesting things are happening in the International Sphere. Looks like our little Wikipedia Article can become part of International Litigation." Err... I'm sorry, if sometimes i can't tell a joke from a serious statement, but, assuming it's the latter, how could that possibly be?

"I'm sorry I had to dissapear like that. I didn't mean to look like you offended me or anything, just that I got a really nice job offer, and couldn't turn it down. I mean Wikipedia's great, but CanCun is CanCun." Yeah, that was a part of my worries. =) Glad, it's not the case. And what that mysterious CanCun is? Google didn't actually help me out with the name. Just something about some hotels, but i somehow have trouble imagining you working in hotel business. =)

"And since I left, it looks like the article went into even more insanity." Yeah, it did. It's strange though, looking how supposedly pro-russian editors like Offliner and FeelSunny, were present nearly all the time. I think it can be due to their unwillingness to argue about reliability of some "sources", because as we can see, this usually unleashes one hell of a demagogy and math-misuse. =)) And frankly, i can't blame them - i wouldn't wish this constant sickening quibbling and bickering to my worst enemy.

"The HRW equated driving with raping, and then wondered why they lost respect." Looks like i've missed this one. Will find it at sometime, just for the sake of grim amusement.

"DARWIN! WE NEED YOU! COME BACK!" One can wonder, if even Darwin could have done something in this case. =) And one must not forget, that though Darwin himself is dead, but his theories are as true as they always were. Sooner or later, the Life itself will give out Darwin Award's to those worthy of them. We can only hope, it'll happen sooner, and no innocents will get harmed in the process. =)))

"Also, you can't say it on Wikipedia, but if this was a debate, I'd just point out that Kober has been heavily indoctrinated by Saakashvili, just like Xeeron and Narking." Yeah. =( That's the sad of it. The thing, that amazes me in such cases, is how could that be, that a person, seemingly not unintelligent, like Kober or Xeeron, can be like that? Kober's contribution list quite impresses me. In other time, i might even would have tried to become friends with him. All in all, that makes me wonder, whether or not i'm the one, who is "indocrinated"? Unfortunately, one can never know the truth. All he can is choose between several presented versions of events, according to some inner ideas of what truth can look like. Unfortunately, i won't be able to know, whether i'm right or wrong, until some 50 years later, Russia or Georgia will declassify some documents, concerning the war. I just hope, that if i'm to live till that date, i'll find out i was right.

I have to go, but i wanna say you something. Try to keep your temper, you seem to lose it lately. Remember, what you've said to me? They try to get you all emotional and kick you out. Kober's threat is an example. See you. 212.192.164.14 (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything said on Wikipedia can be used in court against the author. Wikipedia doesn't have the same freedom of speech protection as, for instance opining in a newspaper. Don't worry though, if you haven't said something so evil that you could risk war provocation you're fine. I am kind of in the Hotel Biz, International Tourism to be more exact. There is a huge debate going on about whether to open up Abkhazia to tourism or not, due to Georgia's actions people might feel as if it's a threat. So Georgia will either have to leave Abkhazia alone, or face sanctions. And Bush, the protector of Saakashvili, is gone, so it'll be easier to do. Cancun is an excellent place to do business, because there you can practically do whatever you want that's not criminal, (i.e. can't hit other people). HRW also took a huge hit from the war and lost privileges in Russia they previously enjoyed, maybe they might learn something and act like UNICEF did next time. Also, Offliner's more neutral then pro-Russian. FeelSunny I think left because Xeeron was getting to him, just as he is getting to me, I hate users that don't read and just want to get their points across. Kober's contribution list is impressive, but you might want to study the individual contributions he made, like trying to slowly remove the Georgia military plan from out article, by first arguing it was alledged. Also, the war was a Total Russian Victory - so I doubt Russia will release those documents. It's an ace for Russia, because should Georgia misbehave yet again, Russian can release every single weakness of the Georgian military, and have other countries declare open season on Georgia. Also, Russia has reverse-engineered all of the equiptment they've captured, so should US or Israel misbehave, Russia could give that to Iran. Notice how the fear of S-300 missiles suddenly went up after this war. Think about it: did the S-300 missiles get vastly better in 10 days, or could something else be attached to those missiles. Meanwhile Russia's ORBAT is unknown, Russia's tactics are unknown, so it wouldn't be wise for Russia to release the ORBAT. However, study Battle of Stalingrad, then study this, and you'll get the general picture, minus the huge casualties suffered by the USSR. Ain't it ironic? Thank you for the temper warning, I guess what goes around, comes around :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Everything said on Wikipedia can be used in court against the author." Really? That's interesting. Because it's not like i'm going to provoke any wars, but, in our days, who, knowing that i'm russian, would believe me, anyway? =))

"I hate users that don't read and just want to get their points across." Yeah, tell me about it. =)) The most annoying part of it, is that, thanks to that voting idiocy, users are coming, like Staberinde, who are refusing to read previous rename discussions, before bringing up the very same arguments again. Do you have any idea, what can we do about that?

"...so I doubt Russia will release those documents." I was talking not about military plans and tactics, but rather about some documents, which will make it really clear to everyone, who had really started the war. All that "responsibility" thing, you know.

"Notice how the fear of S-300 missiles suddenly went up after this war." Never heard anything like that. That would be coming from some western media, isn't it? I'm afraid, i can't know anything about public opinion manipulation in other countries but my own. Anyway, as you can see, i'm no expert in either history or military technologies, so i can only wonder what else in the world, be it "borrowed" or not, one can attach to a ground-to-air missile to make it more fearsome?

"Thank you for the temper warning, I guess what goes around, comes around :D" I guess it's not, seeing how Kober continues to attack you. =) The thing i actually wanted to warn you about is exactly the one, which has happened. I'm of course referring to "canvassing" accusations. I should have advised you to thread your steps carefully, in the respect of abiding all the wikipedia rules in their strictest sense, because, with all that opposing crowd, it surely was only the matter of time, when all of your edits become watched through, in hopes of finding some rule violation. Unfortunately, i had to go last time, and couldn't elaborate on the matter further. =( Now we just have to wait and see what it will turn out like. I hope it will be OK, but take the threat seriously, OK? I've seen pro-russian editors of the article being expelled from wikipedia for lesser crimes. For example, you should familiarize yourself with User:Bogorm's case (start with his talkpage), who happened to be a contributor to the article like you (in fact, contrib stats of SOW article and Talk:SOW shows, that you have nearly exact number of edits to both, and on Talk:SOW you're on adjacent positions). At least, arbitration discussions can consume most of your wikipedia time. And speaking about temper warnings, i'm afraid that they all can try and provoke you into some heated argue just once, and there will be only 1 personal attack from 10 of them, and 10 personal attacks from 1 of you. Guess who will be perceived by admins as the troublemaker? Take care, my friend. 212.192.164.14 (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Re-Indent) Let the attacks come. He was the one shouting "attack the edits, not the editor". The main thing I discovered with bullies is to remain brutally calm, because then the bullies freak out, and rightfully so. The "canvassing accusations" are a joke, my only mistake being that instead of posting on Wikiproject Russia, I posted it on the Russia Discussion Page. That was a Newbie mistake, and if I get punished for it, so be it. I don't think the punishment's more then a 24 hour ban. Furthermore, all of the people that I've contacted, have edited this article. And because Kober included Pocoquatro, and lied about me posting it in more than one article... I am very thick skinned, so the temper warning I need to take some time off, in case I don't post a rebuttal. I appreciate those though, because even the best of debators need some time off. The thing is, the provocations are downright pathetic, like those of a first grader. I mean HystericWanker007? Sure :D Name's Wanker-Bond, Hysteric-James Wanker-Bond. You gotta have friends to joke around with about the edits, and have fun with it.

In our days, Russia is respected around the World, enough to give you credit for being Russian. But in order to be sued, you have to commit a crystal clear error, say accusing someone of multiple posting when only a single post occurred kind of error. In terms of war provocation, your statement must directly lead to a war provocation, such as "China should fight Russia in the Caucasian Region for influence, as should the rest of the EU, their response is that of wussies".

About users not reading? A lot depends on the viewership. Most people on Wikipedia are intelligent enough to figure out right and wrong. They see the discussion, they see what's going on. The point here is what will intelligent neutral people be swayed by? The argument that wars are named with the strongest nation going first? Or the truth, that the attacker goes first. Most of the time the attacker is the strongest nation. Sometimes you get a dolt.

It's crystal clear who started the war. Georgia attacked August 7th, Russia counter-attacked August 8th. There's not much to release. The "We were provoked into getting out asses kicked argument?"

The are credible Western Independent Journalistic Sources. Use Google, you can find them. They're the ones with the later publications, because they were doing that thing called Actual Research. You need a month or three to get a full view of that war. So look for stuff published September and later on. Nothing in August made sense, except for a few videos. As for attaching stuff to the missile? Well you could just attach a piece of paper, and on that piece of paper you have "the vehicle about to be used against you has weaknesses here, here and here". I'll give you an example anyone will get: imagine Skywalker vs. the Death Star, not knowing the weakness... Thus the paper is deadlier than the actual missile. Anyways, Obama said that he'll focus on rebuilding the economy and catching bin Laden, both noble purposes, so I wouldn't expect any American presence in the Caucasus or Ukraine. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"The main thing I discovered with bullies is to remain brutally calm, because then the bullies freak out, and rightfully so." The very truth. Knowledge, that helped me out once in a situation.

"That was a Newbie mistake, and if I get punished for it, so be it. I don't think the punishment's more then a 24 hour ban." Yes, it's not a big one, as itself, but they could try and bring up some sorts of what they perceive to be your other misdeeds, like "constant personal attacks", etc. With big enough crowd shouting, you can become up to your ears in arbitration. Of course, nothing they do will get you more than a 72 hour ban, but still i guess it will be an unpleasant experience.

"The thing is, the provocations are downright pathetic, like those of a first grader. I mean HystericWanker007? Sure :D Name's Wanker-Bond, Hysteric-James Wanker-Bond." =))) Yeah, very funny, indeed.

"In our days, Russia is respected around the World, enough to give you credit for being Russian." Nah. I find it very unlikely for USA, Britain, some states with whom we were fighting during WW2, former-Soviet Baltic states, Georgia, and, possibly, Ukraine, which government does everything it can to make the word "russian" a swearword. But i guess, one cannot hope to achieve universal popularity. =))

"About users not reading? A lot depends on the viewership. Most people on Wikipedia are intelligent enough to figure out right and wrong." And if they don't think that attacker comes first, then they must be unintelligent? =) I think you're hitting too hard on people. They could have not enough time for either making out the structure of our tangled rename discussion or for getting enough facts about the war to form an independent opinion. Of course, usually it's not the case, and Staberinde certainly doesn't look like an exception. Still, it's obviously only the matter of blame game, and nothing more, and i can't imagine any noble reason for people, who don't think that attackers come first in titles, to oppose "Georgian-Russian" if they support "Russian-Georgian". Anyway, i don't like either of them. Blame games should be played outside Wikipedia.

"It's crystal clear who started the war. Georgia attacked August 7th, Russia counter-attacked August 8th. There's not much to release. The "We were provoked into getting out asses kicked argument?" " Alas, i don't feel anything can be clear in murky depths of politically-induced wars. If there was real movement of russian troops across the border of Georgia on August 7th, what else should have Georgia done, but try responding, even if that means getting their asses kicked? If there was no movement of russian troops, then still nothing contradicts to a version, by which Russia plants clever disinformation, which made Georgians believe Russians are going to attack. Let's consider Kober, for example. Assuming he is not from any kind of pro-georgian Wikipedia Brigade Btw, you should see that kinda funny notion by User:Digwuren on SOW talkpage about pro-russian Wikipedia Brigades. My guess is that he was referring to us =) , then, since he's not unintelligent, there has to be something - maybe some facts i'm unaware of - which makes it not so "crystal clear that most of the blame comes with Georgia" for him, isn't it? What can it possibly be?

"The are credible Western Independent Journalistic Sources. Use Google, you can find them. They're the ones with the later publications, because they were doing that thing called Actual Research. You need a month or three to get a full view of that war." You see, here lays the trouble. I don't exactly have enough time to search for these WIJSs; more regrettably, i don't even have the slightest idea, where to start my search, seeing how Google queries of "Russia-Georgia war" and "South Ossetia war" lead me to nothing "independent", to put it mildly. Maybe you can give me some pointers?

"Thus the paper is deadlier than the actual missile" Yeah, a common wisdom. Btw, while we at it, i don't actually understand current geopolitics, maybe you can explain me, what's the deal about US and Iran? I mean the REAL deal, not just those usual US's misgivings about alleged Iran's nuclear weapons.

"Anyways, Obama said that he'll focus on rebuilding the economy and catching bin Laden, both noble purposes, so I wouldn't expect any American presence in the Caucasus or Ukraine." Somewhat too optimistic for me to believe. =)) When crisis will end, there still will be those two NATO-friendly nations in the region. Somehow, i don't expect US to give up on them so easily. But let's give Obama his chance. 212.192.164.14 writing from 217.8.236.156 (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I do something evil, then they should feel free to report me. In my recent argument with XXXXX, he didn't report me. Now do you think he wanted to be nice to me, or simply because he had nothing to report. The thing is, if you always play safe, you don't get reported. There's a line that I'll never cross. Now if a report is extremely unjust, then the person wanting to ban you, even for 72 hours, thinks of how it will reflect on him. It's a calculus of risk thing, that certain users who are experts at banning won't break, and I know the calculus. When I have more time, I'll post it. In US, Russia is respected, and the most famous Russians are Ovechkin and, wait for, Sharapova! Kovalchuk and Kournikova come in close second, and then there's Datsuyk, etc. Yeah, there are also Malkin and Volchenkov - and there's the first line of Team Russia for the Olympics in 2010. Most Americans don't like Palin, and Palin's hatred of Russia was a plus for Russia. We have other news networks besides CNN and Fox News. Britain assasinated a Russian Tsar in 1801, why do you care about what they think of you? They hate the French more anyways. Georgia - well yeah, but it's half and half there from what I hear. Baltic States - again why care? What are they going to do? Tear down another statue? They'll run out of statues eventually, and then what?

The attacker comes first. That's always been the case. And I expect people who edit military history articles to know that. Now if they were editing a political article, I don't care. But War's in the article title, which makes it a military article by default. Have you ever heard of a Court where the plaintiff goes after the defendant? Yes, I actually have standards for editors. Also, notice how I oppose all titles that are offered as change.

Also, the war was military, not political. If people want to talk about politics - go for it, but not in a military article. Russia didn't have any troops in Georgia, except peacekeepers. If the Russians attacked, Georgia could have retreated to Georgia Proper, and face the Russians on Georgian soil. I'm a military historian, and I could get a PhD. in it if I wanted to. (I have an invite to study military history.) The military picture tells everything. Georgian Army was destroyed, Ossetian Army was badly wounded, Russian Army had a scratch. That usually tells you that Russian Army entered the fight last. Also, after the initial rout of the Georgian Army, there was no recovery. Now if the Russians were attacking, Georgians, as defenders would have set up several lines of defense. Instead we find the lines of defense in South Ossetia, the first one completely destroyed, the second one at Tskhinvali, and the third at Dzhava. Next come the civillian casualties. Note how South Ossetia sufferred more civillian casualties the Georgia. This is even more so, if you look at the casualties percentage wise. South Ossetians lost from 2% to 4% of civillians still in the area when the attack began. (Number was 10,000 to 20,000). The percentages on the Georgian side were a lot smaller, less then 1%. Where the fighting takes place, civillians die. Also, most of the military casualties took place in South Ossetia. Georgia was NATO trained, and NATO doesn't stop-thrust a military manuever on enemy soil, ever. The end of a war, is like a murder scene, if you're good at what you do, you know who the killer is, unless the killer was a true professional, the military equivalent being the special forces, not the army. Like Delta Force of GRU Special Units.

Now let's consider Kober. We're on opposite sides of the article, but I respect him. Professional respect. He was in Tbilisi throught the war. The Russians were bombing nearby. When you hear bombs, you want to know what the heck is going on. So you turn on the TV. Or the Internet. The TV blares day and night with anti-Russian Saakasvhili Propaganda. You leave the TV on anyways. With chaos, you won't think to turn it off. Before you know it, you are indoctrinated. A similar thing happened in the US. Remember the War in Iraq? How it all started - well you see Bush wanted to go into Iraq. But he needed the support. So in went the Propaganda Team, the posterboy being Gordon of the NY Times. (Yup the same NY Times with the Georgian tapes.) Within a few months, they were able to get a third of the nation to believe that Saddam was tied to bin Laden and that Iraq had WMDs. And that's without any bombs, without chaos, without 24/7 TV blaring. Propaganda can be a powerful tool, let's not forget what place Stalin took at the name of Russia, beating out Gagarin, Tolstoy, Pushkin, etc. Thus his response, just as the responses of other users from Tbilisi, are logical. They think that they're unbiased, because you cannot control your own subconsciousness. Note the hostility in Narking's edits, vs. edits of Mariah-Yulia who was in Kiev at the time, no bombs, no 24/7 indoctrination. And Narking acted intelligently, asking for access to pro-Russian internet websites. There was a Youtube campaign of Russians vs. Georgian - initially it was massively racist, but the racism is beging to die down now. That's why I stayed out of this article, until I calmed down and gained information on the war. Kober, to his credit, isn't rushing head first into the article either, well for the most part, minus the title change.

I'll get back to you on Independent Reasearch later on. Actually I think I'll make a section on how to do that in the introduction. Also, in terms of rekindling the Cold War, America's broke. Watch Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer. There's no way America can actually afford to through money around like she used to. Hail to the Chinese, they're #1. If America was still #1, the government of Sudan would've been ousted by now. China's their biggest protector. Also, the US will move out of the Caucases and the Ukraine. There's no strategic interest there for Obama. Clinton/Bush used it to have a weak spot if Russia needed a lesson. After this war, it's no longer a weak spot, and unlike Bush, Obama gets it. As for Ukraine, it's broke even worse then the US, there's no money in NATO to bail out Ukraine. You gotta realize that NATO countries are Democratic, and that money can either go to foreign politics, or Domestic needs. So while the voters don't care about America having fun in Iraq, they do care when the unemployment rate hits above 10%, and then the government spending abroad becomes scrutinized, not because people care about Iraqis, but because the money's needed at home. To qoute a conservative comedian "we'd love to beat Russia in Cold War II, but we're fucking broke!" If the unemployment rate in the US reaches 30%, it could be a revolution. The Real Unemployment Rate, not those slackers who are "looking for a job for the past five years".

What's the US deal with Iran? Well AIPAC is a very influential pro-Israeli organization in the US. Israel and Iran, thanks to the Neocon's Iraq War, are fighting for influence in the Middle East as equals. US wants Israel on top. Currently they're equal. Hence the plan for invasion. But with Al Qaeda, whom the US and Israel, and pretty much ever civilized nation, fear even more, Iran, much to AIPAC's chagrin, isn't #1 on the list. By the way Georgia and Ukraine are very far down on the list. Anyways, need to get back to my research. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's been awhile, but i'm busy over my roof.

"Russia is respected, and the most famous Russians are..." Still, it's sad for me to see, that if we're famous in something, then it has to be sport. Never mind.

"Britain assasinated a Russian Tsar in 1801, why do you care about what they think of you?" I'm sliding off topic, but if people would be thinking in such categories as and "never did me wrong" and "did something wrong to me at some, however distant, past time", then nobody would have had a single friend, because, in some sense, everyone did wrong to me - to me as a person, to me as a part of my family and relatives, to me as my country, to me as my etnicity, etc. I can bet, that in my and anyone else's ancestry there were ancestors from competing tribes of cromanions, or something like that. To go this far in the past is, of course, an exaggeration, but still: where lays the line in time, which divides, what i can forgive and what i can't? Frankly, i'm not a proponent of vendetta mentality, especially seeing into what georgians and ossetians were led by it. And also i can distinguish government of country from it's people. Assassinations are initiatives of government, not regular people. I don't care what English government says about Russia, but i'm at least interested in what ordinary people of England think about Russia.

"They hate the French more anyways." Ugh... Oh, well. Looks like the more i get to know the world, the more it disgusts me. Look, I'm a naive man, but maybe you know what's the trouble with them all? No wait, forget it, i rather won't bother you with my stupid questions. It looks like knowing history really helps. Unfortunately, familiarizing myself with history is not a top priority task of mine right now, to put it mildly. =(

"Georgia - well yeah, but it's half and half there from what I hear." Well, i guess it could have been worse. Real pity that we had to separate that way. You probably won't understand, but it really hurts me.

"Baltic States - again why care? What are they going to do? Tear down another statue?" Well, that statue thing was really a downer, you can believe me. I dunno what they were trying to achieve by this gesture, but they have surely angered beyond reason nearly every single russian (count me among those). Still, it's not like i have met a single person from there, so i still have to withhold my general opinion about them.

Overally, i notice that you make an emphasis on unability of those countries to "do something" about Russia. But i usually try to gain people's trust and respect not because they can "do something" to me, be it good or bad. In fact, i think that the time, when some country could have "done something" to Russia, ended with the moment Russia became country with nuclear weapons, but that doesn't change the fact, that if i ever happen to travel outside Russia i want the people i'll meet to be welcoming. At least, because i've never done them any wrong.

Continuing the topic of "who started first", while your reasoning made it much clearer for me, it is still beyond laymans. For example:

"Russia didn't have any troops in Georgia, except peacekeepers. This is a matter of debate, isn't it?

"If the Russians attacked, Georgia could have retreated to Georgia Proper, and face the Russians on Georgian soil." What about "not a step back, not an inch of our territory goes to enemy" reasoning? They also could have tried to block them at Roksky Tonnel bottleneck and were going there, but "separatists" in Tskhinvali put up a resistance against Georgian advance, which resulted in the picture of defense lines you described.

"Georgian Army was destroyed, Ossetian Army was badly wounded, Russian Army had a scratch. That usually tells you that Russian Army entered the fight last." Or that might tell that Russian Army mostly used artillery and aviation.

Still, what you've told me was very interesting. I'd never seen the event from the eyes of military expert before and it turned out quite fascinating, thanks. =) Tell me, please, while we're on it, what is lectured to those who want to be military historians? What they're supposed to know? Are there some notable/influential books which will let me grasp some essentials on the topic? Modern military, at least?

"The TV blares day and night with anti-Russian Saakasvhili Propaganda. You leave the TV on anyways. With chaos, you won't think to turn it off. Before you know it, you are indoctrinated." Yeah, tell me about it. =( Can't blame Kober for this, though. You now, i'm starting to think, that it's either all TV news in the world are just evil, or it's that i just haven't seen a good TV news yet. I dunno, maybe it's their manner of wording, or whatever, but they always make things sound much worse than they are. To my shame, i hadn't thought to skip my TV news myself (like you said, because it's nearly the only source of information), but it happened accidentally (I was too busy to be near the TV set at the news time). Only later I appreciated that, when i was (i think) able to hold my temper on SOW talkpage, when most of my friends became divided between those, who were too angry, and those, who were not interested in the topic at all. Whether it was an influence of Propaganda or Truth, who can tell?... And who can tell the difference BEFORE going into something like Iraq War? The worst part of it, is that there's nothing that will prevent americans or russians to fall prey to similar scam in future.

"There was a Youtube campaign of Russians vs. Georgian - initially it was massively racist, but the racism is beging to die down now." Yeah, that's what annoyed me. I mean, yeah, our countries have had a war, but unless you have your relative dead or something, why hate all the Georgians? Like georgian soldiers were, I'm not exactly a free person in this respect, too. If tomorrow my government orders me to go and continue that war, i will be left with no choices but obey or be sentenced by Court Martial, so what? I can't blame ordinary people. All blame lies with governments.

"If America was still #1, the government of Sudan would've been ousted by now. China's their biggest protector." And what was that about? Look, since i'm just too slow on international news (for the most part they're not mirrored on my TV), maybe you'll consider writing something like HistoricWarrior's Short Guide to the Galaxy - i mean - to the Real World Politics? =))

"Also, the US will move out of the Caucases and the Ukraine. There's no strategic interest there for Obama." You sure? 'Cause as far as i've heard, nearly no real shifts in the government took place. Director of Pentagon is the same as he was. Dick Cheney (i'm unsure whether that's a proper name spelling) is also somewhere around the place, isn't he? I don't really understand inner workings of American government, so am i wrong to suppose that this means no real change in foreign politics?

"As for Ukraine, it's broke even worse then the US, there's no money in NATO to bail out Ukraine." The biggest fun in it, is that it looks like we (Russia) are going to give Ukraine that bail out credit.

Returning to article news, i see there that User:Domitori guy. Knowing he's somehow connected to physics, makes me wonder, how a person can simultaneously be highly educated and unable to understand the difference between early and late casualty estimates? And the difference in usage of word "order" in physics and in daily life. It's like hearing those "English 'And' versus Math Logics 'And'" arguments again. =( I just fail to understand these phenomena. The most annoying thing is that he clearly knows nothing about the war, seeing how people have to explain him the basic facts. Oh well, i guess it'll take just 3RR to take him out, since, as for now, he is unable to present his position clearly.

Finally i wanna say, that everything you said was really interesting, but i'm clearly a no match for you in informativeness of posts (in other words, i am boring =), so if you'll decide to skip wasting your time on me, i won't mind. Otherwise i'll be glad to see your answer. Sincerely Yours 212.192.164.14 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I am extremely busy RL-wise. You are not at all boring, you are willing to learn and can grasp the basics. The rest comes with practice, lots of practice. I'll post a quick answer, and then hopefully have time to expand it. Sports are important, most famous black person is Jordan. Be proud of the athletes, and don't expect too much out of the laymen. Yeah, forgive and forget, but assasinating a Tsar, that I think crosses the line. Americans would execute the person who killed JFK, and probably the killer's family. History is fun, but it goes in stages, first it seems massive, then interesting, intriguing, painful, fun, extremely painful, and finally - totally amazing. You are at one of the painful stages, it will get better. The British basically comitted atrocities in the 100 Years War and the French replied in kind. Hence the hate. And it's not a matter of debate, Russia didn't have any troops in Georgia except peacekeepers, prior to Georgia's attack. Russia didn't think that Saakashvili was going to be that stupid, but stayed prepared just in case. Russian Aviation didn't have the necessary superiority to do what you said they might have done, as for artillery, you'd need a longer period of time to cause those casualties, because soldeirs, especially in today's mobile warfare, move from place to place, making it hard for artillery to perform. Nope, hate to tell you, but 90% of "TV News" is total and utter bullshit. Want real American News? Watch the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report. (Colbert is very sarcastic.) Obama has to fix the economy, which means there is no cash left for Georgia and Ukraine. You can either produce butter (fix the economy) or guns (fix Georgia & Ukraine) and Obama said economy's his top priority, and I know it is, if Obama wants to stay in office past 2012.

Ordinary people - ok this one is important, so it gets a full answer. Ordinary people are pretty much the same, be irrespective of their race. In countries where Rupert Murdoch has a hand in the media, the ordinary people are predominantly more racist, after listening to "Mr. Fair and Balanced". However, having been all over the World, ordinary people rock. They just want a good life for their kids, to party, to chill and have a good time, to have their national team win something, pretty much what you want. They're generally friendly to people with an open mind, even in Rupert Murdoch countries. Another important thing to distinguish is Nationalism vs. Patriotism. I get along with Georgian Patriots, but Georgian Nationalists, uffff!!! Although the same could be said for nationalists from all countries.

Military historian - modern? Oh puh lease! Yeah, that's what we say when we want to make money. Sun Tzu wrote a book, the Art of War. Read it. It does a beautiful job of covering the basics. Advice for Saakashvili: "when the enemy is better trained and more plentiful, one should not attack". (I think that's a direct quote.) After Sun Tzu, the next to seriously impact military history, was none other then a Russian who got me to study Russia's miltiary history. Do I need to say his name? I think you can figure it out, starts with an "S" - read his works. You have to get the basics, before you can analyze more complex stuff, and those two guys do a magnificent job of covering the basics. Then you have to realize how much military evolved in World War II. WWII was the pinnacle of military achievement. Never before, or since, so many innovations were produced. Any battle, war, etc. fought today is an advancement of a strategy used in World War II.

Sudan analysis: basically US and China are seeking to exploit Africa's resources, just like England, France and Germany did a century earlier. So there are sphere's of influence, i.e. the US backed Chad, vs. China backed Sudan. Well Sudan started comitting war crimes, or rather comitted war crimes in front of the cameras. The US began equipping Chad, China - Sudan. Since the weapons must be tested, and there are too many... no I won't go that far, a war was imminent. Then in comes a Chinese representative, and suddenly US okays peace and drops the pressure on Sudan a tad. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"Well I am extremely busy RL-wise. You are not at all boring, you are willing to learn and can grasp the basics." Yeah, at the expense of your time. =)) Thanks, anyway.

"Yeah, forgive and forget, but assasinating a Tsar, that I think crosses the line." Well, i agree, but it's just that there is nothing i or anyone else can do about it to restore justice. The actual killers are dead. Those people, who ordered the assasination, are gone, too. Upon whom should i avenge? How should i extend the notion of "the ones, who are responsible for the crime"? Should it include ancestors of killers? Just the main surname-carrying line, perhaps? The whole current royal family? Ancestors' relatives too? All englishmen? You see, it's not like i am "forgiving and forgetting" it, at least just because there's nobody whom i can forgive it, but ignoring opinion of all englishmen as a mean of "punishing them for the crime", or whatever, sounds like a really silly idea to me.

"History is fun, but it goes in stages, first it seems massive, then interesting, intriguing, painful, fun, extremely painful, and finally - totally amazing. You are at one of the painful stages, it will get better." Thanks for a compliment, but i would rather guess that i'm at the "massive" stage if at all. =)

"Want real American News? Watch the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report. (Colbert is very sarcastic.)" Yeah, i've seen 2 DSs about SO war before, Jon Stewart was really cool. =))) The only question that bothers me in such cases, is whether one can seriously contemplate something, that was given to him in a humorous form? For example, let's consider some average man, who starts doubting in government-endorsed point of view, and then he sees his vague suspicions materialized on a TV screen in form of humorous exaggeration, won't that make him think "nah, i must be rambling"?

"They're generally friendly to people with an open mind, even in Rupert Murdoch countries." No kidding? You mean, if i would walk into some small Texas town and say that i'm a russian, i'll be OK? No one will start asking me questions like "How come ye russian SOBs attacked Georgia?". Anyway, speaking of ordinary people opinion, Colbert Report is good and all, but how many people in America actually believe (or care at all) in "Evil Russia attacked Innocent Georgia" version of events? I understand that there's that financial crisis and all, which have shifted american attention to some rather more urgent matters, than "new cold war premature ejaculation" =), but still...

"Another important thing to distinguish is Nationalism vs. Patriotism. I get along with Georgian Patriots, but Georgian Nationalists, uffff!!! Although the same could be said for nationalists from all countries." Yeah, unfortunately some people seem confuse these two terms. I hear something lately (in western press, mostly) about growing russian nationalism. Strangely enough, i've never ever met a single nationalist in my whole city (that of course is an exaggeration, i can't possibly meet my whole city, but i consider my circle of aquaintance to be wide enough), but if it's true, then it's all very sad. I'm afraid, i might find myself having fight with some gang of "patriots" over, say, my good Kazakh friend Arthur. =( Alas, there's nothing i can do to prevent it. But it's the case where Patriotism and Nationalism are directly contradicting terms, because all the latter can lead Russia into, is a new wave of separatism, and i can only wonder, how someone could be not understanding it.

"Sun Tzu wrote a book, the Art of War. Read it. It does a beautiful job of covering the basics. Advice for Saakashvili: "when the enemy is better trained and more plentiful, one should not attack". (I think that's a direct quote.)" Yeah, i bumped into mentions of this book on many occasions before, shame on me for i didn't read it. Now i did (in russian and english), still have to wait for it to sink in and reread once again to understand fully. Then, there is one book with a commentary and analysis of the text, that i have in plan for reading, because i feel that the majority of the text went beyond me. I mean, OK, carefully choose your commanders, train and support morale in your troops, avoid some kinds of terrain not to be surrounded and gain tactical advantage, war must be short and victorious, etc. That sounded to me like obvious things. So i'm still have a commentary to show me what a shallow person, who can't understand the real depth and wisdom of this wonderful book, i am. =) Btw, i take it that there are two major english translations, and it seems i read the other one, because your quote wasn't direct there. =))

"After Sun Tzu, the next to seriously impact military history, was none other then a Russian who got me to study Russia's miltiary history. Do I need to say his name? I think you can figure it out, starts with an "S" - read his works." Well, if there's one russian commander, who has renown even among laymen, then it has to be Suvorov, is that the man, or am i mistaken and you meant not some battlefield general, but rather some military theorist? I'm lost in guesses, then. Otherwise, what works of him will you advise? You see, I found and read one (a small and insignificant one, i think), but others are hard to find, and i want to be sure i'm putting an effort into locating a worthy piece of reading.

"Sudan analysis:..." Thanks for insight. I wouldn't have imagined that we're still living in the age of colonization... But better to be aware and prepared.

On the article news, looks like the vote will be legally completed tomorrow, and there's no conclusive support for either of names. Let's see, whether someone will suddenly come up with more votes in favor of GRW, it's their last chance, after all. =)) Sincerely Yours 212.192.164.14 writing from 89.251.107.25 (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yay! We won! And I've already been warned that someone will never forgive me for it! Ok, so I posted on the Russia talkpage, instead of wikiproject:Russia - I mean is that really such a huge mistake? The massive stage can be the most interesting. There are experts in each field and eventually you learn how to pick them out. For instance, Mike Davis does a stellar job showing the World the real Los Angeles in "City of Quartz".

About the Daily Show - don't ever underestimate the value of humor. When Prima Kursk said that "Luzhkov cannot kick out illegal immigrants cause then his wife would go bankrupt" - I doubt people in Russia thought that just because it's a joke, it's not true. When someone makes a truly ridiculous arguments, like Fox News, the best way to counter-argue that is to make fun of it. I've seen arguments where, I kid you not, there was a complete idiot arguing that Putin and Medvedev (or Med as said idiot called Medvedev, because typing "vedev" is apparently very tough) are parting ways because Medvedev gave an interview to a journalist that Putin didn't approve of. How do you deal with people like that? You make fun of them. You use sarcasm. That's why, US or Russia or China, the best news sources are the comedy networks, and Americans know this just as well as Russians or Chinese.

Ahh, I see you have been reading Mark Ames. Independent journalists are to be admired and paid well, but that's not the case, instead we get people like Cavuto who don't know jack shit. As for the average person, not everyone in the US watches Murdoch's bullshit, so if you were to talk to Texans that don't watch him, and most Texans actually don't - you'd find out that they would be totally ok with you being Russian. Even at a completely random bar.

Hey, I've been called a nationalist. People have low IQs, nothing you can do about that. You are welcome to browse my talkpage and find an example of said IQ number, the section will pop out right at you. Separatism, that's the whole Imperialism concept, you make two groups fight and get the rewards for yourself. Chamberlain said it best "I want Communism and Nazism to destroy each other". Yeah screw all those millions of civillians that are innocent, the kids the elderly that are going to die, Chamberlain wants land and resources. Maybe you should tell the nationalists that you meet, that by dividing up Russia's population, they're doing exactly what Chamberlain and Hitler tried to do. It would be a nice "Cold Shower" for them.

Sun Tzu's book isn't hard to understand. It's hard to implement. That's why Suvorov was so great, he not only implemented Sun Tzu, but implemented his addition to Sun Tzu's tactics, not just merely reading it. Also Sun Tzu's book applies to everything, not just war. It applies to your job. There lies the beauty of the book. Any fool can get the material, but only the wise can put it to proper use. So don't feel like most stuff passed you by, try implementing Sun Tzu to your daily life. For instance, start working out :P

I was talking about Suvorov. It's funny how neither Suvorov nor Sun Tzu are mentioned in the West, it's all about Alexander the Great and Patton here. And then you wonder how the US manages to get bogged down in two wars. Or keep on supporting Saakashvili. You don't study for a test, you fail it. You don't study for a war - you get bogged down. Everything is very basic, it's getting the basics that's hard to do. Russian military theorists, hmm you might try Rokossovsky or Frunze. Russia didn't have that many military theorists, she had great leaders, but not too many theorists. While I think of some, here's a decent read: http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8366&IBLOCK_ID=35

We're not living in the age of colonialism, we are living in the age of Neo-colonialism, where instead of controlling the land, you control the resources through financial strangleholds. Here is an interview of another good guy demonized by the Western Media: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgianne-nienaber/exclusive-interview-congo_b_156374.html and from the interview I qoute: "How can you fight for your own minerals? [Laughter] If this were about minerals, I would not be here. You see minerals are being exploited by China, by Belgium, by South Africa. Petrol is under French control, uranium under American control, copper under Belgium, diamonds under Jewish, and gold under South African control...Yes of course because we are going now into economic slavery. If we accept this Chinese contract it is the end for Congolese." And the guy gets betrayed and jailed for a bribe, what a surprise. Neo-Colonialism at it's best. But the good news is that slowly but surely the information is coming out, and eventually Neo-Colonialism along with Imperialism will die. And then a new system will be in place, and people like us will be designing that new system. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war title vote

You took part in a previous discussion about that articles name, therefore you might be interested in Talk:2008 South Ossetia war#Article name vote. --Xeeron (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Personalized edits

This has been going on for a while, and I want to ask you to stop. I have tried to ignore your actions as good as I could, but both the personalised way in which you consistently post on the South Ossetia war talk page, as well as your posts here and on your userpage make that hard. It is a controversial topic, and the discussions are heated, but that is not an excuse to attack the editor instead of the arguements. --Xeeron (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no Vendetta against you. I have asked you repeatedly to show me where my posts on the 2008 South Ossetia Talk Page are anti-you. You have failed to do so. Also, I have created a special section to deal with these types of incidents, on my talkpage. So, once again, which posts, edits, etc. in the 2008 South Ossetia article do you find offensive? Post them here and we can talk about it. Or in any article that I've done. I'm sorry, but when you make a whiny post not backed up by evidence, I laugh. Show me the evidence, any article, any talkpage of an article, where were my edits anti-Xeeron? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a court-room. I don't want to "proof you are bad", I am just asking you to stop directing your edits against me. If you honestly do not know what I am talking about, I will post examples of your edits that I find offensive, but I rather want to avoid a blame game. --Xeeron (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I need to know what I am doing wrong to improve, irrespective of whether it's a court-room or not. I am not a mind-reader! I won't just stop editing the article becuase a user finds my edits offensive. Everytime I found your edits offensive, I gave you proof, I feel like I deserve the same courtesy. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if you insist, I'll be more specific.

• You consistently directly or indirectly portray me as pushing a POV, ignoring NPOV or being pro-Georgian: While we often are on different sides of the debate, that does not make your side "right" or "NPOV", nor my side "wrong" or "POV".
• You (also repeated) comments about my math abilities are uncalled for.
• This goes as well for your other views of my personality ("heavily indoctrinated by Saakashvili").
• When you refer to my posts, you very often do so in a derogatory manner, e.g. calling my above post "whiny".
• Lastly, and most importantly, please stop putting words into my mouth, stop pretending to know my thoughts. I find it very taxing to consistently having to correct these (e.g. "In his desperate hopes for the change, Xeeron has placed the discussion after the vote, not before it" - No, it was not my "desperate hopes for change", but rather the application of standard wiki procedure. This is one example out of very many). I want to spend my time here on the wiki bettering articles, not defending myself against your attacks. --Xeeron (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You are pushing POV, i.e. one of your recent edits rephrased an article that stated "Russians didn't attack before 10AM" or something like that, and you craftily rephrased it as "Russian began attacking at 10AM". Not what the article said. I merely pointed out your ridiculous claim that Russians outnumbered Georgians 2:1 on the 8th, showing how that is incompatible with the principles of mathematics, i.e. a 1:1 ratio is not portrayed as a 2:1 ratio, because 1 != 2. Your above post was accurately described, but fair enough, I'll be nicer. Standard wiki procedure calls for NPOV, not Google hits, why don't you apply that? Also, why all the pretense, why can't you just say that you want to change the article's title to make Russia look guilty? I don't like pretense, it makes you look, umm, see above. And you aren't bettering articles, by bringing up a point that most editors think is a clear waste of time. We've had 100 pages of discussion on it, enough already. You are furthemore only focusing on one article, and each edit that you made has been anti-Russian. Prove me wrong, show me a pro-Russian edit that you've made. And articles is plural, you are only focusing on a single article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Even replying here, you can't stop framing all your replies as personal attacks on me. "why all the pretense, why can't you just say that you want to change the article's title to make Russia look guilty" Why can't you stop pretending to know what I think? I am defending the name that I feel is more descriptive and fits the article better, yet you consistently allege that I do it for POV reasons only. And you did not point anything out about math. You did however for the umphtens time is LIE ABOUT WHAT I DID AND I AM GETTING FUCKING SICK OF IT!!!! The "claim" of Russians outnumbering Georgians 2:1 was not made by me, not based on any math, BUT COPIED FROM A SOURCE WHOSE EDITOR I AM NOT. No math involved at all, just copying a statement from a source into the article. You know that very well and you attempts to protray me as being unable to distinguish 1 and 2 are nothing but an underhand attack to discredit me. And, FYI, I strife to make my edits NPOV (by only including facts that are backed up by sources and giving room to both sides) and not pro-Russian or pro-Georgian. --Xeeron (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Xeeron, if you are going to be hysterical and curse and whine, please step outside of Wikipedia. The article is called 2008 South Ossetia War. You have started a discussion, where it is crystal clear that the only title the 2008 South Ossetia War will get changed to, is the Russia-Georgia War, which clearly would imply that Russia is the attacker. Really Xeeron, when I ask for edits, I don't expect hysteria back. I expect history. The claim that Russians outnumbered Georgians 2:1 was bullshit. It was you who brought the ISDP into our article, prior to checking if their math was correct. You cannot expect to edit in an article, that has an anti-Russian bias, and then be able to hide behind Svante Cornell's PhD, claiming that you had nothing to do with it. I double-check all of the source I bring into the article, make sure their numbers aren't screwy. You have failed to do so. I merely pointed out your failure, and yet against all common sense you insisted on keeping ISDP in the article. Now you come in bold and caps lock saying that it was really ISDP and not you. Either a ghost accessed your computer and made all of the pro-ISDP arguments, thus assuming full responsibility for it, or it was you Xeeron. Ghosts don't edit wiki. Plus, don't say to my face that you are trying to make NPOV edits, that's a lie, just judging by your ISDP insert alone. The ISDP said that it was surprising that Russia used force on August 8th, and that the use of force by Russia was disproportionate. Neither claim holds true. And this was their introduction paragraph that you placed into the article. And here you are with caps lock on my talkpage.

At least 10 editors told you that the ISDP was biased, but you placed it in the article anyways, thus taking full responsibility for the edits that you, Xeeron, made. Let's take a look at the ISDP first & second paragraphs, page 5 of 45:

"In August 2008, Russia launched an invasion of Georgia that sent shockwaves reverberating - first across the post Soviet space, but then also into the rest of Europe and the World, as the magnitude of the invasion and its implications became clear.

This invasion took the World by surprise. But what should have been surprising about it was perhaps the extent of Russia's willingness to employ crude military force against a neighboring state, not that it happenned..."

First off only a complete ignoramus would have been surprised by Russia's "invasion" of Georgia, because on August 5th, Russia sent a clear note to Georgia, that BBC published. Here's a timetable:

August 5th: Russia to Georgia: do not touch South Ossetia military, or else we will intervene (BBC published this!!!) August 7th: Georgia attacks South Ossetia full scale, with Grads, tanks, and the whole thing. August 8th - August 12th (or 16th): Russia intervenes.

What in the World did anyone find surprising?

And if you study real military analysis, you will realize that Russia force was not crude. Batallion Vostok doesn't use crude force. Nor do any of the Russian units sent in.

After me telling you all this, you went ahead and edit-warred me on ISDP. And for pointing this out, I am somehow evil?!?!HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the Caps. They never help, I forgot that. I could not bring my point across when asking nicely, so obviously shouting does not help either. Instead of prolonging this by clarifing who said what about isdp, I'll leave. I failed in convincing you to argue in a polite way and instead got rather heated myself, so I have to consider this discussion a mistake. --Xeeron (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been as polite as I can be. I'm sorry that us being on opposite sides got personal. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think I should clarify as to why I undid your last edit. When you made the edit, you not only edited the xxxxx, but switched the order of the sentences, which resulted in giving an individual more weight then a bunch of individuals. I'm not sure if this was intentional or not, so I won't comment on it further, just felt you needed the explanation. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hey there, Kober has brought up some canvassing done by yourself at Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Wikipedia:Canvassing. Whilst the note you left me on my talk page has nothing wrong with it, as I was aware of the discussion already, the message you left on Talk:Russia was inappropriate. Just be aware of Wikipedia:Canvassing. The Russia article isn't the right place for such messages, as that talk page is for the improvement of that article; a more appropriate place would have been WT:RUSSIA, and it should be done neutrally, such as "There is currently a poll on *link* regarding the name of the article. As the article within this project scope, project members may be interested in voicing their opinion". And then interested editors can choose to respond to it, or not, and we won't have unnecessary questions of canvassing being raised, etc. I've removed the message from the Russia talk page, and feel free to let me know about such discussions in the future (Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices), if they relate broadly to Russian-related topics. Cheers --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for being cool-headed and helping me out and cleaning up my mess on the Russia talkpage. :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fed up with your personal attacks and abusing my userpage. Next time you do such things, you will be reported. Consider this your last warning. --Kober^Talk 04:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Calling you a liar when you have in fact lied, isn't a personal attack. It's the truth. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Tic-tac, eenie-meenie

I want to vote but don't know how. Will somebody please tell me which way I should vote and why. Thanks in advance. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you aren't being sarcastic, I'd recommend that you weigh the arguments; NPOV vs. Google hits. If you think that Google Hits is more important, then vote in favor of changing the current title. If NPOV is more important, then vote in against chaning the current title. Calling something Russia-Georgia War, implies that Russia was the attacker. 90% of the newspapers that used that name, stated that Russia was the attacker. Thus saying that one side was the attacker, when it is clearly not the case, is POV. However it's enourmously popular amongst Google hits, it's a hit. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Another show of abundant good will from yet another pro-Georgian user. Calm down, Georgia lost because it was wrong. Period. FeelSunny (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's sad. I mean I'd expect insults to be insulting, but this is just kindergarden. I feel like a baby sitter here. Shouldn't Wikipedia be for users above the age of 13? Or at least 7? Not asking for much here. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, underaged users editing WP are kind of a refreshing experience:) FeelSunny (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

See the post below! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Reason people are always picking on you (or so 7h3 thinks...)

Shocking title, no? :D Informing you that the reason those "bully" Wikipedians condemn you is probably because the way you write: it's a bit bias sounding, you cuss, typoes, and grammatical errors, etc. Did you see the article that was deleted that you posted? It had 17 errors... just informing you if you want that put up, you can put it on my talk page for me to edit away all the bad grammars... (bad grammars :P; I might decide to merge it with something though, so the info will still be there but in another article...)

I just stumbled upon the Georgia-Russia thing... you're a bit mistaken on saying those people are all biasing though. I checked the stuff that you said was bad and it was fine. Can you provide examples to further your point like you keep on telling the "bullies" to do? And what are all those rules you mention (attacker first in war names etc.)? Would appreciate clarification, as I'm a bit curious about this whole thing.

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c ) 05:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm, first off I don't feel very picked on. Secondly I've only worked on one article, that would be the 2008 South Ossetia War. Also, please show me exactly where I have "cussed"? BTW the correct spelling is cursed. Look, I can tell that English is not your native language, but please try to make sense here. I am extremely confused at what you are writing, it sounds like Gibberish. So, I will try to answer what I understand, because my job as an editor doesn't involve translating. As for the attacker going first, that has generally been the case, see for instance the Arab-Israeli Wars. Where the Israelis weren't the attackers. It makes logical sense to place the attacker first, because he initiated combat. It is the same way in the infobox, it is the same way in some sports (say servers score first) it is the same way in law, Plaintiff and Appellant always go first. It is even the same way in chess. I cannot find a single place where the defender goes first. Also, there's a military rule on it, otherwise I wouldn't have been taught it as a military history major, but I'm not going to dig through my books. Also, stop it with the "I'm trying to help you out" approach, when you're not. It's silly. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Insulting my language skills? :D And now you're ignoring the power of regional language. Here's a neat rule for you, just 'cause other stuff has been that way, doesn't always be all of them should... you know how it is, Wikipedia doesn't always follow tradition. Oh well, now I guess I'm insulting you, too. So, good night to you sir. (And, hey, look, another row of grammar oddities, which I italsised. And you insult my skills.)

As for your last series of sentences, it's just that when someone puts something like what you put on your userpage, I expect that that someone was feeling addled somehow. And no, I'm not trying to "sound helpful", I was wondering about what happened that that made you sound all p'd on your userpage.

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c ) 00:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how you insult me. Furthermore I stated that it is hard to comprehend your post. Your second post proves that point. Feel free to think that you insulted me though, if that makes your life easier. As per the stuff that I put on my talkpage, umm, it's called a "Guide". Usually people do not write guides for themselves, unless they are in middle school. The reason that I wrote the guides, is because I saw that certain users, such as User:Bogorm, were unjustly banned from Wikipedia, and in order to prevent future cases like that from happening I posted the guides. I was frustrated by the whole name change thing, because I don't like sneakiness. If you want to make Russia look guilty, say so outloud, no need to hide behind Google Scholar. I am a bit po'd, but not because I feel insulted, rather because I actually care about less bullshitting and honest users getting banned. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like to argue, I like to even less. I cannot see what you mean by "it is hard to comprehend [click the link] your post", but I will not dwell on it further. Goodbye.

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c ) 22:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Hide behind Google Scholar... wha? And "think you... insult me"... WHAT?

This is precisely what I meant by you being incoherent. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(unidenting):Sorry if I'm a bit incoherent (really though, it should be coherent if you're familiar enough with the language- not to offend); at least allow me to state my position in my posts at least. I don't know why you suddenly leapt to the conclusion that I was somehow against you: quote: Also, stop it with the "I'm trying to help you out" approach, when you're not. It's silly. :being that I merely wanted to know what work you were doing on the article, but it's somewhat understandable, being that there were quite high tensions during the development of the 2008 South Ossetian War article, and there were quite a few people opposed (to the point of bias?) against you. But again, let me restate my position: I just wanted to know what happened (I was too lazy to browse through the massive talk page :P).

Well? What happened?

When I meant "the way you talk", by the way, I meant your personality (or rather, style of argument; my wordings really quite inconcise [though not inconherent, mind you]). You *eherm* as seen below use the words "loony", and such, and as seen above: well, you can see above. (Not especially: "Hi! How can I help you, but "Hi! I'm POV-pushing a bit, but at least it's logical, and you do it too, you big loony. Hey! Are you personally attacking me? Buzz off my talk page!") :P

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c ) 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically what happened is when you name wars, you have to follow standard war naming conventions, not make stuff up that benefits your POV. Post-WWII wars have generally been named on the basis of location, i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, Persian Gulf, First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, Somalian/Mogadishu War, Korean War, etc. Thus, since most of the war and the fighting, well over 70% took place in South Ossetia, I wanted that to be the name. Other editors however wanted to rename the war Russia-Georgia War, thus implying that Russia is the agressor, despite the fact that Russia got attacked, on the basis of incorrect media reports, using the logic "if everyone says so, it's right". I pointed out that it wasn't everyone, but merely mass-media networks dominated by 10 CEOs, whereas most military historians, actual military historians not Svante Cornell, were calling it the War in South Ossetia. But because mass-media is able to get a lot of Google hits, and Google scholar hits, that was the other side's argument. This went on for about 100 pages, and then no renaming took place. But then, someone from the other side, invited a friend to explain that the article was "hard to find". Nevermind that the friend had no clue how to do research, within a day, there was another vote up for renaming. This is where I have comitted the "sin of sins" and instead of placing the name change discussion in WikiProject:Russia simply placed it on Russia's talk page. And then the other side, that was losing the vote to logic and common sense, began attacking me, and reporting me. I was even accused of informing a fellow editor, who worked on the article two weeks before the vote and with whom I had discussions about the article 1 week before the vote, which was enough for the other side to accuse me of canvassing.

Also, I haven't kicked anyone off my talk page, nor have I reported anyone for posting stuff on my talk page. I merely pointed out the hypocricy. As for your writing, it is hard to read. I graduated with a B.A. in history from a U.C. (that's a University of California school) and it wasn't Riverside or Santa Cruz. So when something is hard for me to read, I believe it's hard for others to read as well, therefore it would be properly labeled as incoherent. Also, labeling a section "Why People Pick on you" and starting out with the line "shocking title, no?" can be interpreted as an attack. Also, can you please tell me where I used the word "loony"? I think someone's been watching too much Looney Tunes. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh, thanks for finally telling me. Apparently the, your barnstar is well deserved :D. On the "loony" comment, I think some guy above (or below) posted something saying you did that. But I dunno now. This page is pretty long too, so I won't read all this either. *manages faint laugh* Well, if I'm incoherent, I think that can be explained because I didn't graduate from a University of California school with a B.A. in history, no?

Sorry if the "shocking title, no?" and such alarmed you. I didn't expect it to start this off (evidently). Tensions are high here. How would I know? :P

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c ) 02:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not about being or not being a graduate. Incoherent means I don't get what you're saying. For instance, in the previous paragraph you were coherent, I understood what you said. The title didn't alarm me, but it was factually incorrect. The people picking on me, weren't picking on me so much, as on the fact that I wanted this page to not become another part of the propaganda machine, but rather to describe what actually happened. In this war, nobody expected the Russian Army to do THIS well. It wasn't just a victory, it was a total victory. But ever since Putin kicked foreign oil companies from Russia, the country is being slandered. That's not too big of a deal for me, oil politics is oil politics. my problem lies in the fact that along with Russia being slandered, the Russian Army is slandered as well. This leads to the perception that Russia is an easily defeatable opponent and encourages dimwits to attack Russia. I don't want more warfare, where warfare can be avoided. I'm not a chicken, I'll fight if I have to. But attacking Russians on defacto Russian soil is a moronic exercise to the point of absurdity. You won't win, you'll never win, all you'll do is cause more casualties and kill more innocent human beings. Anyone with a minute knowledge of real Russian Military History will know that.

Hence the "Title Wars". The whole point of the group pushing for the Russia-Georgia War title, is to portray Russia as the agressor. Who's the agressor in the game Axis and Allies? It's not called Allies and Axis now is it? The agressor goes first everywhere, in the trial - the plaintiff, the party bringing the charge goes first, and the defendant goes second. This is ingrained in our psyche. Calling it the Russia-Georgia War, means that Russia was the agressor, plain and simple. However portraying Russia as an agressor in this war is misleading. The main battle, the Battle of Tskhinvali was a defensive battle for Russia. A counter-attack is a defensive attack, because one must first stop the initial attack, prior to counter-attacking, if the counter-attack is to be successful without major losses. Saakashvili broke at least three parts of the peace treaty, attacking a legitimately placed Russian miltiary base, attacking the Russian citizens in Tskhinvali with Grads, (mobile rocket launchers) and launching an attack on the Roki Tunnel, part of which was in Russia.

Nor was the Russian response disproportionate. The international rule on disproportionality requires that civilian casualties be greater then military casualties. This is not the case here, as Georgian military casualties are much, much greater then Georgian civilian casualties. Thus the attack wasn't disproportionate. You're allowed to kill military that's attacking you. It's called war.

Anyways, I was just getting tired of the corporate media getting away with everything, including misleading the American public regarding the stock market crash and wanted to show that they're not unstoppable, and that the time that they got away with everything is over. Time to actually *gasp* for reporters to report, not bullshit. I picked an article that I was familiar with, (I'm a fan of Russian Military History) and that also had the biggest gap between what's reported, and what's actually true. If one simple editor can do it, the rest can too. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:TALK

Just curious, did you see the second sentence where it said "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."? Ostap 14:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, did you read WP:TALK where it said that one is allowed to show one's knowledge in regard to discussion sources? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Just curious, do phrases such as airhead, crazy, nutcase, and loon sound like sharing ones knowledge in regard to discussion sources? Ostap 18:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know that seems to be your area of expertise. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever gives you that idea? Ostap 23:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who suggested it. Also, you might want to check WP:TALK, I believe you are violating it on my talkpage. Good Day Sir! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha! Good day to you too. Ostap 14:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Western media is not rabidly anti-Russian

, but Russia Today is (it never tells me what is really going on in Russia)! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch calling Russians terrorists for the act of shooting back wasn't rabidly anti-Russian? Some Western media isn't, Rupert Murdoch owned ones, were rabidly anti-Russian regarding this war. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

People, both of you, when you say "Western media was this", or "Western media was that", deny the very possibility of Western media being democratic. Because you imply there's some monolith, called WM, and that means there exist one center of power for all the "Western media".FeelSunny (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the Western Corporate Media. Basically in the United States 5 conglomerates own quite a bit of the media. It's hard to fight them, when the Five work together. It's more of an Oligarchical Hold on the Media, rather then the Media itself. For instance on the bailout debate, the Five took the Corporate Side, and shut out any other form of debate. As a result, nobody knows where a few TRILLION DOLLARS went, and nobody can do anything about it. For instance:

News Corporation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation#Holdings

Time Warner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner

General Electric: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric

Disney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney

National Amusements Inc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Amusements,_Inc.

Most of the US TV Stations that have over a million viewers, are owned by one of the above-mentioned companies. ABC News? That's Disney. CBS News? National Amusements Inc. CNN? Time Warner, who also owns Time Magazine. Fox News? It's owned by News Corporation, I hope someone sees the irony! MSNBC? That's General Electric. Although, to their credit, the five weren't all anti-Russian, as only News Corp and Time Warner rushed headlong into the fray, whereas the more experienced companies, such as GE, wanted to get a clearer picture. Nor do they all hold a tight leash on their subsidiaries, because one wouldn't want 20th Century Fox being treated like Fox News is treated, as a joke. But the conglomeration aspect is definitely there. That being said, the media in the US depends hugely on popularity, and even US Supreme Court Verdicts can be popularly "nullified" via the Right of Boycott. That is if the American People say no, the government cannot do it. That's how Bush didn't get to invade Iran. And as a result of its coverage of Russia, CNN dropped viewership. So it's not like the people are defenseless; we have power, we can act, we can even make laws in 15 states, one of them being California, via the initiative process. It's kinda like sex, and the people tell the media when they've gone too far. The government gets the memo as well. Hope that clears it up :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Award

		The Special Barnstar
		I, ETST, award this Special Barnstar to HistoricWarrior007 for his incredible work on 2008 South Ossetia war article. Without his great efforts, it would be a misnamed pale shadow of itself. --01:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't know each other, but I was monitoring South Ossetia war's talk page for a long time now, and couldn't help but notice that it's mostly because of you that this article still bears the most appropriate and neutral name, as well as contains not as much of wild POVed stuff as it could. I ask you to accept this barnstar as a sign of my appreciation and respect of your firmness, with which you managed to endure those long tedious renaming discussions. --ETST (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I always love an award that is truly deserved! Based on the reasons that you stated, I humbly, yet passionately accept! :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:ETST. Without HistoricWarrior007 the article would probably be in a much worse state POV-wise. Offliner (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Offliner. Coming from you that means a lot to me :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Please stop polluting my talk page and discuss your grievances on Talk:2008 South Ossetia war. Next time you post such message on my talk page, you will be reported for Wikipedia:Harassment.--Kober^Talk 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you allowed to delete comments from your talkpage? I'm not entirely sure you're allowed to do that, I'll check. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it has been made apparent to me

That people read my talkpage. I might as well throw in some humor:

"Russia is a meanie. I mean in a war where they got attacked they actually used tanks. And SpetzNatz! No fair! Russians don't get to use SpetzNatz, or guys that can do this: http://www.spike.com/full-episode/green-beret-vs/32039 And VDV? Seriously that's just too much. In addition those pesky Russians have probably studied defensive tactics on the ground. Since Russians win way too much wars, Russia is Undemocratic, Hegemonic and Ebil, unless it follows two rules: first Russians don't get supplies and second Russia's leadership must suck. Like a Gorbachev, or a Yeltsin. Or someone who purges the army, like a Stalin. Or Tsar Nicolas the II, that idiot's cool, he could even supply the troops! Just please, not Putin. Not SpetzNatz. Not VDV. And while I'm at it, will the damn Russian regular soldiers stop fighting so honorably and start committing atrocities. I mean when Russians don't commit any war crimes, that makes Svante Cornell look like a joke. Bawww!"

The above was Sarcasm. It needed to be said.

sarcasm (noun) 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony. 2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark.

Synonym: Stephen Colbert, see - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-4E8ZDj9s HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing survey

Hi. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic current events articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at 2008 South Ossetia war that you are a key contributor to the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below. An explanation of my project is included with the survey.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kLMxj8dkk_2bls7yCBmNV7bg_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to e-mail me with any question/comments/concerns.

Note in General

Guys, when I say that I'm busy, that means I cannot respond ASAP, but you should still ask questions, it won't be stop me from editing! Look at how long it took me to reply to the IP guy, but we still had a nice chat and I hope he comes back. Or e-mail me if you have any questions, historicwarrior7@yahoo.com HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

E-mail "change"

We're all human, and I made a mistake. My e-mail is historicwarrior7@yahoo.com not HistoricWarrior007 - which is my wiki nick. I apologize to everyone, please resend the e-mail to historicwarrior7@yahoo.com and as compensation, each e-mail that I get in the next two days, will be answered within the next 14 hours, and most will be answered much sooner. Sorry about that. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I will also try to find out who historicWarrior007@yahoo.com is, and maybe he/she can resend me the e-mails that you guys sent him/her. But if you don't want to risk it, just resend it. Again, I'm very sorry about this. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok it appears that the account has been deleted, or something like that. The good news is that whatever you send to HistoricWarrior007@yahoo.com has been kept private. The bad news is that it has been deleted.

Please send all e-mails to historicwarrior7@yahoo.com and again, I'm sorry about the mess. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Borisov

Could take a look into this: [2]. First of all, Borisov did not explicitly say they were conducting exercises inside South Ossetia. Secondly, if he was doing exercises there, would it be against the against the Sochi agreement[3]? Obviously, Borisov's statement is being used to push a POV, and it's suspicious that none of the more reliable sources (such as the BBC) are mentioning this at all. Offliner (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the whole conversation:

"С.БУНТМАН: А вот я только об уроках. Вот увидели вы этот Т-72, который только совершенно другой.

В.БОРИСОВ: Ну, у нас хорошие танки. Сейчас, между прочим, сегодня, вот, мы смотрим, еще продолжается идти в Омске большая выставка наших современных вооружений, где и Т-80, Т-90. Это хорошие танки, но вы об этом сами сказали – он очень хороший, но их поставляют очень мало в войска. То есть самые лучшие вертолеты, вы знаете, Акула, КА-50, КА-52 - хорошие, ну а где? Где они, вертолеты? Мы ждем их. Так же и это. Понимаете, у нас все в разработке одно из лучших, но в войсках мы бы желали это видеть быстрее, как в других странах, где от разработки до исполнения бывает от полугода до года. Но мы надеемся, что пойдет это дело.

А.ЕРМОЛИН: Ну вот, в таких локальных конфликтах, конечно, опираясь, пусть на опыт прошлого столетия, наверное, мы умеем что-то делать, побеждать в том числе ценой потерь. Но, вот, скажите, обсуждается ли угроза нашего отставания в высокоточном оружии, в самом современном? Ну вот, ни для кого не секрет, что наши самолеты – самые лучшие в мире по аэродинамике. Но в то же время мы знаем, что их гроздьями можно сбивать, используя современную навигационную систему, которая есть у нашего противника.

В.БОРИСОВ: Ну, я понимаю ваш вопрос.

А.ЕРМОЛИН: Не перебьют ли на дальних подступах?

В.БОРИСОВ: Довольно-таки подготовленный в военном плане офицер, потому что закончил 4 и 2 военных училища, военных академии, но этот вопрос, конечно, надо задавать представителю авиационного командования, а я воздушно-десантное командование, и я больше, конечно, по вопросам нашей компоненты. Хотя, да, я скажу, что я 2 полных года прослужил в Афганистане, и вот тогда летчики у нас были асы, поддерживающая авиация и транспортная авиация, и вертолеты, и самолеты. Были и был опыт. Я считаю, что на данном этапе он, может быть, утерян или, как бы так, мало используется. Это всегда наша беда. Я считаю, что все опыты предыдущих войн мы слабо учитываем.

А.ЕРМОЛИН: Управление знаниями не работает.

В.БОРИСОВ: Да. Мы-то знаем это все, поэтому, может быть, и успех воздушно-десантных войск, потому что был генерал Шаманов, который сейчас наш новый командующий, на Абхазском направлении возглавлял группировку. Я возглавлял на южноосетинском и грузинском направлении. Вы понимаете, мы даже в тех районах учения даже постоянно проводим. И наши войска получили полную практику, за неделю до этого проводя учения именно там, в тех же местах. И только убыли и шли. Поэтому марш совершая в сторону Цхинвала, мы его совершили намного лучше, чем те части и подразделения окружного и центрального подчинения, которые были сняты с хранения, понимаете? Для нас это не было никаким препятствием. И ряд других задач мы выполняли, как оценило нас командование вооруженных сил, начальник Генерального штаба, министр обороны, более успешно. Может быть, это повлияло сохранить наши воздушно-десантные войска в том же состоянии именно без большего реформирования с переходом на бригадную систему. Потому что дивизионная система ВДВ показала свою управляемость. Нет такой острой необходимости нам переходить на бригадную систему. Потому что это у нас аэродромная группа, как основа – это батальон, а дивизия – это несколько аэродромных групп, полк. Понимаете? И бригада, уйдя на аэродромы, которые в районе сосредоточения 100 квадратных километров, все-таки, это командир батальона от капитана до подполковника, возможно, и без академии, без уровня. То есть уровень дивизионного звена – это намного выше уровень управления именно по уровню офицеров, подготовленных. Сколько выпускников Академии в дивизии и сколько в бригаде – большая разница."

Borisov was responding to this: "А.ЕРМОЛИН: Управление знаниями не работает." Basically what Ermolin is saying, is that mere theory doesn't work in warfare, and practice is required. They're not talking about where the battle took place, they're talking about training methods. The way you train, is that you have a satellite and photographers, take snapshots of the place where you think there will be a war. And then you recreate the scenery. You don't actually train in the place where a war might happen, because you will get hit during training. The discussion is about theory vs. practice, it has nothing to do with location, it is horrendously quoted out of context.

"Я возглавлял на южноосетинском и грузинском направлении. Вы понимаете, мы даже в тех районах учения даже постоянно проводим. И наши войска получили полную практику, за неделю до этого проводя учения именно там, в тех же местах."

"I led the troops attacking against the South Ossetian and Georgian Direction. You understand, even in those regions, we constantly train. And our forces received full training, a week before this, conducting military exercises right there, in those places." In other, Borisov is merely admitting that the training exercises took place in the Caucasian Region. I could've told you that. He's not talking about specifics, because he isn't allowed to say the exact place the Russians trained at. And he's saying in those places, meaning that if one states that Russians trained in South Ossetia, that means that one has to state that Russians also trained in Georgia Proper.

"И только убыли и шли." - We just left and walked. He says "shli" not "vernulis" "вернулись". That means that they didn't return to the place where they conducted the exercises, thus it cannot be in South Ossetia. They have completed their training, didn't return to that place, and went into South Ossetia on August 8th. Borisov's Russian is very good. If he wanted to "admit" that Russians trained in South Ossetia, he would have said "we trained in South Ossetia and came back to South Ossetia. Instead he said "We trained in a location I cannot disclose, in the Caucasian Region and then we left and walked". There are no indication of him giving out the location where they trained. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As per the Sochi Agreements - since the Russians didn't train in South Ossetia, there's no point in talking about breaking them, because they weren't broken. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. Could you please post this to Talk:South Ossetia as well, so that others will see it too? Also, could you remove the text "General Vyacheslav Borisov, said that his paratroopers conducted combat exercises in South Ossetia long before August 8. This supports the Georgian assertion that Russian troops, other than the UN mandated peace keepers, were on the territory of Georgia before August 8" from South Ossetia#2008 War? I've done too many reverts on that page already. Also, User:Samogitia seems to have gone on a POV-pushing spree now, and should be watched. Offliner (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh Dear

"2008 genocide of Georgians in South Ossetia [1], [2] started during and after [3] the 2008 South Ossetia war genocide of Georgian people was conducted in South Ossetia and other teritories occupied by Russian and South Ossetian forces [4]."

"South Ossetia's persident Eduard Kokoity has publicly acknowledgmed in his words that he and the forces under his command or with whom he is working are engaging in what can only be called ethnic cleansing, a form of genocide [5]. of Georgian people in South Ossetia. As the war of 2009 in South Ossetia came to a close, there were reports of massacres in Georgian villages inside the conflict zone ­Ossetian militias checking the ethnicity of residents and treating all Georgians to a bullet in the head [6]."

Sorry, I had to: "When he was pressured or further persident Eduard Kokoity has pubicly acknowledgmed in his words that he, and the forces with whom he was working with, and those under his command, cause they deserve to be mentioned twice, is still engaging, to this day, in the form of genocide now known as ethnic cleansing. That's right kids, ethnic cleansing is now a form of genocide. Why not, troops are air forces, ethnic cleansing and genocide are also synonymous. As the war of 2009 (yup, the war is still going on) came to a close, (well it lasted a year, might as well come to a close) there were reports of massacres (of the English Language). In Georgian villages inside the conflict zone, but in other zones as well (especially the zone of "in the zone"). As the war is still going on and came to a close, Ossetian militias checking the ethnicity of residents, and treating all Georgians to a bullet. In a year-long treatment, less than one Georgian was "genocided" a day, making this the World's least efficient "genocide". persident Eduard Kokoity also acknoledgmed that his English is superb, in comparison to the wiki user who wrote the above article". Yup those two paragraphs were an article on Wikipedia. An Article that User:Biophys wanted to keep. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

reports of massacres (of the English Language) - beats it all:))) Perfect:) FeelSunny (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the above written crap and blatant POV Fork was kept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia The votes were 11 to delete, 10 to keep and 2 to keep/merge. So it lost 11-12, even though the other side had no arguments. And then you wonder why some users go into sockpuppet accounts. It is the arguments, not the votes that should decide whether an article is kept or deleted. I thought that wikipedia was not a Democracy, that arguments mattered here. 69 out of 17,500 dead is not ethnic cleansing. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources for that article: Georgian, British, Georgian, Georgian, Georgian, Norwegian (cited 3 times), American, British, HRW (in reference to the 1996 war, cited twice),

New York Times, the fine newspaper that worked its ass off to get Americans into a needless work in Iraq, such as this article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/international/middleeast/08IRAQ.html is cited twice. Once it is a second-string correspondent making shit up, and the other article defines ethnic cleansing as "a form of genocide".

The Norwegian Helsinki Committee, based on a whopping alleged 16 killings, proceeds to boldly call it ethnic cleansing. Clearly, if you kill one person out of a thousand, it's totally ethnic cleansing. Unless it's Serbians being killed, than it's ok.

The British are naturally cited ones, despite the fact that no actual facts were gathered, and the entire story is based on the person's experience when traveling: "Having looked into the dulled eyes of Alik, the rumours of massacres are not hard to believe". Indeed, having looked into the writer's eyes, I find that idiocy isn't hard to believe.

The HRW is cited. Hip-hip hooray! And a whopping three times! Too bad two of those refer to the early 1990's war. The third one, is probably the only professional source in the article, that actually concedes that no one knew about the scale on which the occurrences took place, and that until future investigations, no one will know. Now a wise person would ask "why would an article be written based on a single HRW report that's already part of another article?" The answer: "no argumentation necessary, go find your own!"

And just to ensure that the article stays "fair and balanced", the Georgian government is cited a whopping six times.

So to sum it up: New York "ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide, let's invade Iraq" Times is cited twice. NHC "1 in 1,000 is ethnic cleansing" is cited once. The British's uncanny ability to tell massacres based on looks in people's eyes is cited ones. The guy must've heard McCain looking into Putin's eyes and seeing "a K a G and a B". The Georgian government is cited six times, geez, I wonder what view they're going to take. That's like asking Nathan Bedford Forrest to be "Fair and Balanced" on slavery. But hey, at least the HRW is cited, and a single citation definitely qualifies another article. Can we do the same for the Iraqis and Serbs? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And hello, again

Bet you don't remember me... oh hell, of course you do. Seems like you can do everything, judging by how you managed to keep the title on its proper place. =)

I hate to admit it, but when i saw the last rename vote starting, i broke down. I thought "we're getting it this time". Frankly, it was quite obvious, that they were preparing the whole thing in advance, and support for the move was overwhelming, at least, in number of votes in favor. And nearly nobody was on your side. It looked like you were unsuccessfully trying to outcry the crowd. Unfortunately, that was exactly the time, when i had no free time at all. I mean it. I had a piece of work, that other people were relying upon, and i couldn't let them down. And right before that, i had another matter, which resulted in me getting home only to take a nap. It has been that way for about a month. Man, i was so tired from all of it. So, at that moment, i decided, that i should close the page in my browser and try to forget about it forever. That was a shameful decision, that i regret. Of course, i couldn't help but open the article a few days ago, on August 8, and i just can't describe how immensely i was relieved to see, that the title is still the same. Unfortunately, i was having severe fever, and couldn't express my gratitude immediately, so here i go now. =)

As it seems in the end, it took just one determined and skilled person (looks like our opponents were unable to find one that matches both prerequisites, despite their huge community base) and just a single reasonable admin to settle the case. Thank you. Your effort was beyond anything i could imagine. I was thinking on joining to ETST's and Offliner's award comments, but what you did this time deserves a whole another dedicated award with a star drawn by me personally and exclusively for you. =) Of course, that would be some day, when i'll have the time to do it, that is, so keep on waiting. =)

Also i can't help but admire the way you was handling with the whole affair. Like, when you took Devil's Advocate statement word for word, but changed "South Ossetia war" for "Vietnam War", etc. It was total fun! =) And the latest piece in Name and Google hits section, about rename attempts going on and on, with links to all rename discussions, is even funnier, since it's true. =)) "I wonder who suggested it? Could it be, the Devil's Advocate? *inserts eerie music*". lol.

There are many other places, i would have liked to mention specifically, many topics i'd have liked to discuss, and i still have to think of a worthy responce to your latest post in our previous talk, but, unfortunately, i don't have any more time to spend. Frankly, i doubt that i'll be able to communicate at all, since i don't expect to have any free time for, at least, a month from now (and that's the best case scenario, mind you =). Anyway, it was nice to see, that you're alive and kickin'. Keep up the fun and good work in the, otherwise horrible, article! See ya. 212.192.164.14 writing from 89.31.118.252 (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :D But I feel I'm not the only one who did it. Offliner's reposting the results of the previous vote helped. Ingy's finally taking a stand helped. FeelSunny generally makes me feel sunny with his support. So it wasn't just me. One could argue that I held out until Offliner was able to make that post, until FeelSunny rallied and Ingy made the decision. The thing is, you have to do what you is right, no matter what the odds, and then the cause won't seem so hopeless. Never did I think that the title was going to be changed, but the best arguments are always saved for last. Although, after so many title debates, the next title debate will just have the best arguments go first, because we've used up all the arguments. That's very unusual.

Anyways, back to my main point: no matter what the odds, you must do what you believe is right. I mean be reasonable, don't be an idealist, don't take on stuff that you can't handle, but don't be scared. This isn't necessarily directed at you, but at everyone in general. Remember the bullies in high school? The way they controlled you was keeping you scared. The same with bullies in life. If you're scared, you don't act. "All it takes for evil to happen is for good men to do nothing."

With that vote, they were hoping to, through massive voting momentum, make the change that they never had the arguments to make. But you have to look at the issue from all sides. The first thing I saw, was three people who never participated in the article, appeared on the very same day, through sheer "coincidence" that had "nothing" to do with Skype coordination, and voted. To me that meant "we're trying to impress with numbers, but we have no argument and we're desperate". So the logical path to take was to slow down the vote, to make it less instant. Luckily, Wikipedia and I agreed on that, as all WP Name Change Convention Policies benefited my side of the argument. Once that momentum fell apart, so did the vote.

You have to be able to ignore "shock tactics". Once you see past these tactics, you begin to see weaknesses. You also have to use the right counter-tactics. Sometimes Boycotting the Vote is more effective then voting it down. But most of all, you have to do what you believe in. And you have to be intimately familiar with the issue. Fortunately for most, and unfortunately for some, I'm writing a research paper on this subject. It's taking a while, because I like to interview everyone, to see all sides, to understand all actions, to go through every battle scene.

To be honest, I was expecting your commentary, such as "unit 212.192.164.14 activate, the title change process in effect" but hey, we all mess up from time to time, you learn from your mistakes and move on. Another thing, is never underestimate what a determined and skilled person can do. I hope I have demonstrated that, not just to you, but to everyone reading my talkpage. In Leo Toltoy's War and Peace, one scene comes to mind: an artillery captain, with three cannons, prevented a French assault from inflicting severe casualties on the Russian Army. Three cannons. 15 men. "But that's Tolstoy, fiction, right?" Well then, take this war: a unit of six Russian Peacekeepers and 1 tank-killing weapon prevented a whole Georgian tank column from entering the city, and saved countless Ossetian lives. What if that one person hadn't issued the command? If that one person never joined the Peacekeepers?

As a frontline soldier in WWI your life sucked. But what if the person who wounded Hitler, instead of complaining about his life, practiced marksmanship? Hitler might have been killed. My point is, you have to do what you believe is reasonable, right and just. One person can make a difference. No matter what the odds. Thank you for letting me know that at least to you, I proved it. And when you're fighting to make the World a better place, remember to have fun in the process.

Thank you for writing on my talkpage. Let me know when you have time off again, because I enjoy our chats. :D

Just out of curiosity, what is it that you do? Send me an e-mail, historicwarrior7@yahoo.com if you don't want to write it here. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Evaluation of the 2008 SO war

I do understand what you talk about. The war was a major blow to the West's geopolitical interests in Caucasus. However, the fallout of the war for Russia is even worse. We have alienated elites in many post-Soviet states, and created a Kosovo-like precedent in the post-Soviet territory.

Yes, I understand that we had no other choice but to come there and help those 70 000 people that were otherwise going to live as second-class citizens in the state much hostile towards their kin. In a state that sent it's army to shoot the statue of the known SO academic in the face and destroy the University of SO.

At the same time, it doesn't make this war a diplomatic victory for Russia. After all this fuss in the Western press, Russia will get an image of a very agressive country in the West. And after Chechnya it's the last thing we need. This will not influence economy too much, but that will surely influence our role in global politics. We have created a point where our position differs with one of vitually every other member of the UN.

And then, what do we do with SO and Abkhazia? You can not control them, and you can not leave, do you understand that? You can use them in some way, but still, you get much less than you spend. Why do we need this new headache?

Yet another disappointment of this war is that West never changes. People may change their mind, but that's not about politics changing their programmes. Obama's foreign policy is very much alike the Bush's one. He just changed the tactics, still he will continue both the missile shield, and the Georgian-Ukrainian entry into NATO. Whatever people think, even if they changed their minds, as you say, the West interests stay unchanged. It would require West itself to change to alter their interests. Maybe in 20-30 years, after the crisis. Not now.

And yet, I am proud of my country defending those people in South Ossetia. It was an example of foolish values-driven war, like when Russian empire entered the WWI it didn't need, because of historical friendship with Serbia. But things like this, when your country fights for it's values, they make you proud. FeelSunny (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure which elites Russia alienated. Maybe those in Azerbaijan, but that's only for a while, eventually, if the region stays stable, they will come back. The Belorussians are more annoyed with Russia not following up on their economic contracts, which Russia, IMHO, should do. Ukrainian politics don't represent either Ukrainian people or Ukrainian elites. The Stans don't care one way or another. They're happy with stability. Of course they couldn't recognize Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, due to their own Geopolitical interests, but that doesn't mean they oppose Russia's actions. Serbia had one of the best statements, in essence saying that while they admire what Russia did, they cannot recognize. Every sane leader wants to be neutral on Russia and the Caucasian Region. It's not that they oppose Russia, it's just that they don't want to risk supporting Russia, but that in itself is not opposition. Most states are neutral on this issue. As George Lucas said "only the Sith deal in absolutes". Most countries have no opinion on South Ossetia or Abkhazia.

Russia's not categorized as "aggressive" in the West. Americans aren't stupid Automatons, and when the mass media started yelling "Russia bad", the people, the American people, rather bluntly, pointed the mass media towards their own support of the Iraq War, and told the mass media to go and .... itself. Again. America has 300 million people. Fox News only has 2 million on a daily basis. Sure the people watch presidential debates, but the mass media doesn't represent the opinions of the American people, they just yell the loudest. Most Americans want healthcare reform, but the mass media is working to sink it, and they're working overtime. They don't represent the views of the American people.

As for the recognition vote, as I said earlier, most states don't care. If states don't care, the status quo remains. It's not about pro or anti-Russia, it's just that most people don't care. Obama's Crowley Comment, eclipsed the news of the 2008 South Ossetia War. You need to stop thinking in two dimensional terms. Don't fall to the Dark Side. The Swiss Government for instance has made it politely clear, that they won't even look at the issue.

South Ossetia wants to be with North Ossetia, a part of Russia. Ossetians have helped Russians keep the Caucasian Region stable. You need to help your friends. Ossetians and Russians are allies, are brothers and sisters. Yeah, helping them is expensive, but it needs to be done. As for Abkhazia, they can take care of themselves. Abkhazia is a thriving Democracy, they have fourteen political parties, and a defensive alliance with Russia. You need to look at this as not just Russia helping out South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but the duo helping out Russia as well.

Obama had to be tough on the Russians. McCain was using this as a campaign issue. Obama couldn't back down. It was just a inner-US political game. Obama's primary focus is the US economy and healthcare and catching bin Laden, Russia and Georgia are simply not a priority. Kinda funny, I called an Obama aid and asked for him to respond to Cornell's quote: "America cannot ignore what Russia did in Georgia". The aide's jocular and off the record response was: "Yes we can!" And Georgia and Ukraine aren't joining NATO anytime soon. At least not for the next eight years. And than, we'll see.

This isn't like WWI. First off Russia won. That's a definite change. Secondly, the Caucasian Region was stabilized. Finally, I have never seen this from the Russian community. They rallied to support Russia. This war, amongst Russians, was more popular then Putin. It had a 99% approval rating. I have never seen Russians so united as Russians were in this war. That's how I knew it was just from the beginning, because some things, you just trust your gut, and then fact check to make sure it turns out to be right. I gotta say, I'm proud of what Russia did, it was a right, just and honorable thing to do. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too, Ok, let's hope everything's gonna be ok with Russia and it's geopolitical interests. FeelSunny (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

These kinds of edits seem to be occurring more and more frequently now. I wonder why? Oh well, soon the Truth (i.e. the EU report) will come out, and it will end all our disputes about this kinds of stuff. But in the meantime, something should be done about these edits. For example, the guys who are reinserting Borisov again and again and again have not said anything on the talk page yet. And the BBC article clearly says what it's quoted in the article as saying. Offliner (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Just undo the edits, and if this keeps up for too long, report for vandalism and they get banned. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying, but I don't want to edit war. Recently I've been too close to WP:3RR, so I'm trying to cut down. Offliner (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well once 24 hours passes, undo it again. I mean we have logic, they have numbers. The moderators always back logic over numbers, if they want a conflict, I see no reason to back down. Plus it makes them look like total ...... to the future generations who are reading wikipedia. The trick is not to give up, that's they're only hope, that we will give up. With each day of their "brilliance" they lose support, we gain it. Numbers have yet to defeat logic. But they'll try, they'll resort to lying saying "I won't engage in a war over this" and then engage in the war. Personally, I have no respect for that. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for lessons in edit warring. Declaring that content you don't approve of is vandalism is not editing in good faith. I see plenty of content put in by both sides without comment in talk. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I could oblige. The main lesson is discuss your edits before making them. You may see that, but I welcome you to find a major edit that I've made before talking. Some minor stuff I probably did, but overall, I always discuss my edits. And I use logic, not numbers, to win arguments. So you're very welcome for the lesson, if you need more lessons, feel free to send me a fax. Oh, and I don't consider discussing logic on the talkpage and calling out editors who act, well against what they said, edit-warring. Nice try of accusing me of edit-warring though, ya almost got me. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of edit warring, only in providing instruction upon the topic. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying - "talk on discussion page first, do what your heart feels is right, and edit the article" - is an instruction on edit warring? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Russian lobby

Take a look at this. It seems that Cornell ordered a chapter from each of the most fiercely anti-Russian authors out there. I'm convinced that we're seeing some kind of anti-Russian lobby in action here. Think about this: if Cornell would not have been fiercely anti-Russian, would he have been given the chance to write this book? I don't think so. The same goes for all those who wrote chapters for it: the more anti-Russian you are, the more publicity you get in the American media. It's no coincidence that this is the only book about the war to come out yet. It's also convenient that they got backcover recommendations from other anti-Russian commentators such as John McCain, the Hoover institute and the US Ambassador to Georgia. "The book helpfully corrects an erroneous urban legend that Georgia started the war." Wow, I'm speechless. Isn't it amazing how OSCE, Western military experts, etc. are all spreading urban legends about the war? When the EU report comes out and blames Georgia (which it will), will that be an urban legend too? It's curious how we see this latest anti-Russian drive happening just before the report comes out. I guess time is running out for certain people, and they want to make the most out of it. The American government's ability to influence the public's opinion about foreign policy and the world never ceases the amaze me. Offliner (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's selling at half-price already. Next stop - the 99 cent store. Sometimes Americans make me proud - they can tell crappy fiction from reality. Also, I'm looking for number of copies sold, but I'm not finding anything. It's certainly available, but so far I've yet to see even 2,000 copies sold. Svante, Svante, Svante, your crap doesn't sell in America. Also, Offliner, McCain's position is no more official US position then Illarionov's position official Russian position. Damn, life's really going to suck for that Oxford guy who commented on the book. Oh well, next time he will read before commenting.

As for McCain, he's a joke: "The core political values of our free society are so deeply embedded in our collective consciousness that only a few malcontents, lunatics generally, ever dare to threaten them." In other words, our free society operates via a collective consciousness. Oh wait that doesn't make it free now, does it? http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_mccain.html "We must win in Iraq. If we withdraw, there will be chaos; there will be genocide; and they will follow us home." Yeppers. I wonder, did John McCain ever hear of the US Navy? Won't the US Navy kinda get in the way?

Also from:http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/johnmccain/a/mccainisms.htm "You know, I think you may have noticed that Senator Obama's supporters have been saying some pretty nasty things about Western Pennsylvania lately. And you know, I couldn't agree with them more. I couldn't disagree with you. I couldn't agree with you more than the fact that Western Pennsylvania is the most patriotic, most god-loving, most, most patriotic part of America, and this is a great part of the country." So saying that someone is the most patriotic is "pretty nasty" according to Senator McCain. Well now that Al Franken has been elected, and the joker's spot has been filled, McCain will lose the next election. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

edit summary

Please do not label edits that are not vandalism as vandalism in your edit summary while reverting. Thx. --Xeeron (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed before, the result was, to delete Felgenhauer. In wonders User:Kober and places Felgenhauer back in, completely ignoring the discussion section. That's vandalism Xeeron. And you, Xeeron, as the person who initially had no problem with deleting Felgenhauer and than suddenly fought like a freakazoid to keep him, thanks for showing me that you're not a man of your word. Anything else? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is not vandalism according to WP:VANDALISM. And you are lying once more, I always took issue with your deletion, as everyone can check at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war#Pavel Felgenhauer. --Xeeron (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure you did Xeeron: "I am not starting a revert war over this, because the whole section will shortly be revamped anyway, but I have to point out that you can not remove sources based on your OR here on the talk page. --Xeeron (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)" And then you proceeded to start an edit war. Like I said, thanks for showing me you're not a man of your word. Also, placing nonsense into the article is vandalism. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Holodomor

Hi, I thought it is a good idea to put the holodomor's genocide claims into perspective. I suggest to replace the section Communist genocide#Holodomor with something like this. (Igny (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC))

Nevermind, I have replaced the section. Feel free to improve. (Igny (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC))

I'll try to. Thank you for changing it! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

ORBAT

Looks like you keep on doing your good work, HistoricWarrior. And with a style, too. I only skimmed through South Ossetia war talkpage, and my sarcasmometer have went haywire, and got broken =D. I guess, it's around the time, when you should make a special wiki-template to apply on top of the pages you edit. Something like

You really should, or poor innocent unsuspecting people will continue to get their precious equipment broken. =D

Speaking of the page, I saw, that you started a section on T-80, where you mentioned, that you are analyzing ORBAT. I am personally interested in reading some of it, so may I ask, what kind of ORBAT do you have, and where did you get it? It's an absolutely non-professional interest of mine, so, please, don't take any effort to answer elaborately, if at all.

BTW, I see you mentioning above on your talkpage, that you want to archive it, but don't know how. If that's still the case, How_to_archive_a_talk_page is what you need to learn the archiving-jutsu. And in case that you plan enabling automated archiving for your talkpage (which is also covered by the link), but find difficult the necessary configuration, I will gladly help you with it. ETST (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I got it archived! Thank you. BTW, I loved the Compulsive Renaming Disorder, I fell off my chair laughing because of that. As for the ORBAT, I'm currently working on reproducing a unit by unit ORBAT for all sides. It's going to be around 10,000 for total units for all sides. I cannot disclose some of my sources, because the research was requested by the UC System. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/ Once the ORBAT is published, could be a few months, I'll ensure that you're the first one outside the system to know. Interestingly enough, the Georgian National Guard did take part in the war, but were quickly routed by the advancing Russian infantry, Russian artillery and Russian air force coordination. The problem with the Russian Air Force, was that initially they went against something they never fought before. But they managed to quickly adapt, and by August 11th became an effective fighting unit. Unfortunately for the Russian Air Force, the Russian Army did such a great job, that the air force only had a few days to show their reformed skills; and those days weren't noticed. Generally, in the history of Russia, when a group does really poorly, it gets covered; when a group does really well it doesn't. For instance the Winter War with Finland recieved much greater coverage than the 1942 War with Finland. Same thing happened with the Russian Air Force; they did poorly in the first two days, mediocre in the next two, and great in the last two. After that it was a rout. Another interesting thing was the effectiveness of the Iskander in obliterating a good chunk of the Georgian tank batallion in Gori, as well as poor Stan Storimans, who thought that standing around tanks during warfare and bombardment is a great idea. Naturally that'll be reported as Putin's fault. In addition, not all of the Georgian Army that fought was "not trained to NATO standards"; in reality that was only the 2nd and 3rd and 5th infantry brigades, but other units, that were "up to NATO standards", fought as well. Also, it's interesting that no one covered the rout of the Georgian National Guard. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Fell of your chair, eh? =D I hope it didn't hurt, or we have to rewrite our template. I guess, its purpose gets defeated, if it just trades psychological traumas and equipment damage for physical injuries, don't you think? =D Anyway, your posts make me fall of my chair so often, that I consider keeping a pillow on the floor next to me on a regular basis. I'm glad, that I managed to return you the favor once. =D

As for the ORBAT, it's not a big deal. I was just wondering, whether there is some info on it in the internet, that I failed to google out. Actually, for a non-professional, like me, the kind of analysis that you provided now, like Air Force performance, is more interesting, than just a plain dry ORBAT. Anyway, ten thousands of units, eh? Sounds like a damn hard and interesting job to me =D. I can hardly imagine the amount of associated information. I wish you good luck with it.

So, Stan Storimans got himself killed by wandering around tanks? I recall myself arguing about that possibility with User:Grey Fox-9589. So, that's what has really happened, is it? That kind of makes me proud for my clairvoyancy skills, pity, that they went unacknowledged at the time =D. And that part on Iskander usage sounded quite interesting. Can't wait to hear the details. Speaking of partially NATO-trained Georgian troops, of course it sounds promising to me, that Russian army have managed to beat them up, but I think it would be more informative to compare, if possible, performances of Russian army vs NATO-trained and Russian army vs NATO-untrained parts of Georgian army, and see, whether NATO-training amounted to any difference (in terms of unit casualties per hours of active participation in combat, ot something like that). Georgian National Guard? I never heard about them taking action before, too. When did they try to step in? Oh wait, I guess, this kind of info is covered by the same non-disclosure agreement, isn't it? Never mind my questions, then.

Speaking of archiving, why didn't you use some of the fancy preset box-templates for your Archive links, instead of a plain link? Not only they provide a show-off capability boost for a fashion-aware wikipedian, but, like Table of Contents boxes, they will automatically produce a link for an archive page, whenever you create one =D. If you don't like their size, position or color, I'm pretty sure these can be changed.

Anyway, thanks for your reply. I'll be patiently waiting for the moment, when ORBAT and your research gets published. ETST (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I did varsity sports. I've fallen so many times, it no longer hurts, and I know how to fall. If I can manage to jump off a bike going 12 MPH, in the rocky mountains and not get hurt, I can manage falling off a chair laughing, and not getting hurt. :P As for the pillow, use a beanbag. Although pillows are comfortable too. And you definitely returned the favor, so thank you for that :D

It's not that daunting, you just take it one step at a time. First I'm doing South Ossetia's, then Georgia's, then Russia's, then Abkhazia's; so it's really around 100 units a day, and I can easily keep track of that. There's never going to be more then 20-50 unites in your head at the same time. It's impossible to memorize that many. Think of it as walking: in a year's time you walk roughly 1,500 miles. That's very daunting to think about, but doing 4-5 miles a day, it's really easy.

Russian performance against the Georgian National Guard can be best summed up as: "OUCH!" I mean you can take SpetzNatz against any national guard, and SpetzNatz will still kick ass. The Russians did beat the NATO-trained units, and did it extremely well, in every type of operations; but that was done on Russian Soil, (De Facto Russian Soil,) so that was predictable. Russians don't lose on Russian Soil if they are ably led. However, Russians and NATO-trained troops had too few engagements on neutral soil for it to matter. Nevertheless, since I'm a nice guy, here you go: http://www.spike.com/full-episode/green-beret-vs/32039 (The simulator was designed by an American military company. Also, I believe that's Spike's best mini-series, but I'm biased.)

About Storimans, yeah - you were right. Another possible theory that the Dutch Government failed to investigate, is that Stan Storimans was killed by a Georgian made bullet that flew from the ammunition dump. We know that an Iskander missile destroyed an ammunition dump. We also know that said ammunition dump housed many varieties of bullets. In addition, the Georgian STAVKA did not plan this war very well, so I wouldn't put it above them to place an ammunition dump nearby the city square where Storimans was killed. When an Iskander, carrying a cluster bomb warhead hits an ammunition dump, the result is that bullets spray all over the place. If one is to recall the Battle of Midway, one would note that the Japanese Aircraft Carriers were sunk primarily by Japanese bombs; a single, direct hit by a US bomb, triggered a wave of explosions of the Japanese bombs. Now such a hit can only be done by an ace, so the US won that battle fair and square; but the Battle of Midway also cleverly demonstrated why ammunition dumps, or planes loaded with ammunition half-way, make a wonderful target.

"During their journey, they had seen the bombardment of the hills around Gori, but given the distance involved, considered that this presented no danger". Yeah, I mean you have a North to South bombing pattern, you're in a city of tanks and an ammunition dump, and the hills North of you were just bombed. Clearly, "the area is absolutely safe for filming" is a conclusion that only an ignoramus would reach. Kids, don't do what Stan Storimans did, unless you want one of the Darwin Awards. Had the Dutch Government been more meticulous in their factual analysis, they would have realized that it's wasn't a cluster bomb. Here's are facts: "many buildings in the direct vicinity were hit and many windows were shattered". Now unless this is a superman cluster bomb, it wouldn't be able to hit many buildings. Some more facts: "two small craters were evident in the square immediately after the explosion, together with remains of a then-unidentified missile". Now here's the problem: two craters, one missile. An exploding cluster bomb would create more then two craters. A missile would create one crater. How do you get two? Answer - the ammunition dump was blown up. Here's the report with a very one-sided analysis: http://www.minbuza.nl/dsresource?objectid=buzabeheer:32226&type=pdf. In addition, the ammunition dump could have had cluster bombs of its own, as both sides used cluster bombs. Here's what an ammunition dump explosion looks like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQl-jPyWbxs Keep in mind how damn big that ammo dump is. This one probably cause smaller explosions. Notice, how Iskander cluster bombs would only record explosions on the ground, whereas an ammo dump getting blown up triggers air explosions. From the report: "the explosions can be seen to occur both in the air and on the ground". I rest my case.

What I don't get is why the Russians aren't admitting to the use of Iskanders. Last time I checked, you are allowed to use missiles against the military of a nation that attacked your Peacekeepers, or that attacked you in general. The Iskander is an awesome missile, scoring two out of two direct hits and utter mayhem against a whole tank battalion. That's impressive no matter how you slice it. Plus, at least one out of two missiles, of Iskander design was recovered. So there's no real point in hiding it.

NATO training makes a difference. But if a classic attack-counterattack tactic is followed, which is what the Russians did, you are generally fine against it. Casualties alone are wrong to look at; some units may be up against better trained units, others may be up against worse trained units. There is a fancy calculator involved in figuring out who won; but in the case of this war, no calculator was even needed. The Georgian National Guards performance isn't classified, it's just not widely talked about; the West doesn't like it because it was a disaster, and Russians never gave it much thought because the Georgian National Guards were quickly routed. The Georgians tried to plug it into action sometime between August 11th and August 12th, when the regular forces were, what Pavel Felgenhauer calls "tactically retreating", and what common sense calls "completely routed".

Details on Iskander? Well the composition is classified. I fixed up the Iskander article a bit, so that has good data on what's not classified. Iskander hits targets dead on, and a cluster warhead, (if indeed it was a cluster warhead) goes BOOM. You cannot really recover the warhead, unless it's a dud, because it's in the middle of the explosion. So data on the missile is classified, (and the recovered portions are useless after an explosion that massive,) and the warheads were destroyed. One hit an ammo depot, the other a tank column of the Georgian Separate Tank Battalion in Gori. The depot went BOOM, see the video link I posted, and the combined effect crippled a whole tank battalion of T-72s. That's all the info you'll get, and that's all the info I know. You can try to subscribe to Moscow Defense Brief, or e-mail the MDB editors, but I doubt that even they know more information.

In terms of making my talkpage purdy and all that, I don't really care about it; thank you for the advice though :D I just wanted to archive information from my user page, as that was old information, and I want to keep the user page relatively clean. I'd rather spend my time answering intelligent questions, like yours, at least in as much a capacity as I can. And I cannot really talk about what agreements look like, but I can provide more information then most; we all act on the side of caution, but people who are more knowledgeable have a better sense of where the line is, and are able to release more information on it.

Also, use common sense. Georgian army has 37,500 men. The amount of Georgians in Iraq was 2,000. Georgia has 5 brigades. 5 * 2,000 = 10,000. But what about 37,500? Do you see where I'm going with this? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so you're doing mountain bike? Sounds cool =D. What was your steepest descent yet? Is it worth mentioning in front of girls, or you just not as much into that sport, as to have some notable achievements? =D

As for SpetsNaz, I guess it surely can kick ass of any National Guard, but if Russian Special Purpose Forces wouldn't have been able to kick some regular force's ass, be it NATO-trained or not, I would have felt shame for my country and hanged myself on the nearest lamppost out of despair for its doomed future. Anyway, spec-ops are spec-ops. They can be as hardly trained as they want, since it is relatively easy to build up a small number of very qualified people, but somehow I don't think that wars, especially prolonged ones, can be waged by them alone. It's the level of training and comparative performance of regular forces, not of spec-ops, that matters. But I guess, it's indeed really hard to compare performances of such kind.

Pitifully, the Spike's Berets-vs-Spetsnaz video under the link you provided, have failed to play for some reason. This fact is even more puzzling, since I was able to watch related Berets-vs-Spetsnaz: Aftermath video from the same site. Anyway, comments underneath the video were entertaining enough to read. But how come you're biased when it concerns Spike mini series, I wonder? Are they paying you for planting advertisements in Wikipedia? =D

Since you made quite a case out of Storimans'... well, case, I looked into it more attentively. But, while I completely agree with you, that Storimans has nearly all what it takes to be Darwin-awarded, I'm afraid, that I have to contradict several places in your "ammo dump" hypothesis.

First of all, I think, you have overlooked the possibility, that the Iskander in question posessed not a simple, but kind of air bursting warhead. We are speaking about a very VERY high speed (2100 m/s = ~1 mile per sec), yet very accurate missile. I find it very unlikely that such kind of missile would rely on impact fuze for detonation - it'll be crippled beyond recognition and several meters below ground before explosion wave even makes it out of the shell. I find it most likely, that it utilizes proximity fuze - which automatically makes it of air bursting kind. An in that case, provided the warhead was of cluster variety, there would be a single initial explosion in the air, which scatters clusters, followed by multiple explosions on the ground (if clusters themselves are impact-fuzed), or multiple air and ground explosions (if clusters are time-fuzed, which, I think, is more likely, since I expect that initial scattering explosion can attribute to loss of impact sensitivity or preliminar detonation of impact-fuzed clusters) - which is exactly the witnessed picture.

Now, if we settle with that, it perfectly explains, why the damage area was so wide - that's exactly the distinctive feature of air bursts. As for the "two small craters... together with remains of a then-unidentified missile", these are actually not 2, but 3 craters, if we include the missile crater. Let us take a look at them. Here is the biggest collection of related videos and images that I found (all comments in russian, sorry). The images of the missile and the craters can be found at the very bottom of the page. It also features links to YouTube videos, but since there are not so many of them, let me mention the most important one: [4] - "Stan Storimans Gori Story Georgia" (check out from 1:30 and onward, somewhere around 1:34 for a glimpse of relative position of craters and missile remains). Here is a slightly bigger and unobscured photo of the missile. Both of the small craters look to me like something an exploded droplet can produce, i.e nothing like a crater from a blowed up munition dump at all. Your another objection was that a cluster bomb would leave much more than two craters, but, again, this assumption would hold only for a regular cluster bomb, not for an air-bursted missile with majority of clusters exploded in the mid-air, thusly leaving the square relatively unscathed. Having that pointed out, I rest my case against Russian Federation =D.

Disclaimer: I'm in no way a weaponry specialist, so these were my wild speculations alone.

Putting it aside, turns out there are many suspicious and strange moments in the video, that people have pointed out, like

a) Supposedly dead lying bodies shifting in their positions.

b) Pools of blood appearing out of nowhere while camera is turned away.

c) Georgians while voicing their cries of desperation for some reason do that in English (like "oh no, oh no").

d) While some people act like they are/were under fire (cowering, hiding behind objects, etc), some bypassers can be seen calmly walking around, seemingly oblivious to the fact, that there was a bombing just now.

e) The missile remains in question constitute its warhead (how come it's not blown apart?), which looks rusty(!) and more like shallowly beaten into the ground, than fallen from the height.

...and so on. You get the picture. The essence of these doubts can be summed up by the following two videos: [5] - "Full video from Gori central square", and [6] - "Gori square. 2 car crash + show?" (it's somewhat unintelligible, and the only explanation of what it means that I found was in Russian). The theory behind them, is that this all was just yet another staged show by Georgians, which involved crashing a couple of cars, blowing up a pair of grenades to form the craters (note the two suspicious explosions at 0:48 of "Full video from Gori central square" - they can be seen to occur exactly where the craters are later found) and placing some rusty unexploded shell in the middle of the Gori square.

As you can see, it's hard to draw conclusions from the evidence, whether or not the bombing have taken place (and if it was, whether it was justified, and what exactly have exploded), whether or not the video was staged (and even if it was, it doesn't mean that there was no bombing, it just that there were no/not-so-many victims from it, but Georgians wanted to make a dramatic impression), whether or not Storimans is really dead (and if he really is, what was the real cause of his death), etc. Am I missing something? Or maybe you have some really convincing evidence of presence of munition dump/tanks, that I failed to find?

Speaking further about Russia using Iskanders, I have my doubts, whether the thing on the photos looks like an Iskander nose cone at all. How does it look like to you? If it's not, and it's exactly the sole case of what is called "recovered missile of Iskander design", then there is no evidence of Russia using Iskanders whatsoever. Maybe some details on blowed up tank batallion contradict that, but I'm unable to find them, too.

With my pillow firmly in position, I went to Ethnic Cleansing of Georgians article talkpage =D. My selected quotes of choice are:

"Ahh, Xeeron betrayed by the New York Times that he's trying to protect, isn't this beautiful irony?"

"Your honor, my client is not the defendant! My client is the plaintiff!"

"Yo, check out my transportation, it's the best form of cars out there!"

"Are you going to clarify, or do you expect me to read your mind? Not being Pavel Felgenhauer, I don't have that ability."

"Xeeron? Reading selectively? Forgetting to read this line "This article first appeared in The Nation"? Nope, I'm not surprised."

But what I really liked was that:

Historic Warrior, maybe you should create an article about ethnic cleansing of Ossetians if you believe there is enough information and references to do so. IJA (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not going to be your little pawn in yet another pathetic attempt to use Wikipedia to have Russians and Georgians going at it. It's been well known that a certain country's policy has been to destabilize the Caucasian Region, and that Russia wants stability. I looked at your talk page, and you just happen to be from that certain country. So now you're trying to use Wikipedia as one of the hate mechanisms to spread hate of Georgians vs. Ossetians and Russians, by calling emigration that happens in any war, ethnic cleansing. I have provided countless similar examples, I have taken apart every argument that supports the creation of this article and I am not going to create the Ossetian version of such hate mongering. By the way, feel free to explain to me how 28,700 become 17,500 after 23,000 are ethnically cleansed at your earliest convenience. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That's really thoughtful of you, HistoricWarrior. I am unable to describe just how much I appreciate your attitude. The war was bad as itself, but related hate spreading... it's the worst. I see - how you put it - "Russians and Georgians going at it" more and more, more and more - it makes me sick, and being unable to put an end to it feels like a nightmare. It's just plain scary, what a sufficient degree of hate can lead to, but, just like in a real nightmare, nobody around seems to realize that. I'm really glad, that Wikipedia has a capable editor, who does. Thank you.

Speaking of the matter, I'm quite surprized, that this kind of article was permitted to exist. It's a pity, that I didn't know about it, or I would have surely voted for speedy deletion. I guess, it wouldn't have changed the outcome, but still. It's a miracle (in a bad sense), that after all of your effort and arguments, admin still chose to settle for "keep, but rename", based on a sheer number of supporting votes. I guess, this is an example of when Wikipedia, despite all the pretence, functions just like a democracy. I'm unable to recall right now, what are the prerequisites for a repeated AfD, but if at some point in future you will start this process for the article, or notice someone starting it, I would be glad to be notified.

As for the quiz, I think I'm going to fail it =D. I don't have the slightest idea of what's wrong with those other 27500 Georgians. But I want to point out several things:

a) To be precise, Georgia has only 5 Infantry brigades. These constitute only a part of Georgian Land Forces, which also include Artillery brigades, Engineering brigades, Tank and Medical batallions, etc. Georgian Land Forces consist only of ~24,000 people, not of 37,500 - which seems to be the total amount of personnel in the whole Military of Georgia (which also includes Air Forces and Navy). Of course, these numbers, that I got from the article, can be horribly outdated now, but if that's not the case, then we have less than 14,000 of Georgians to account for =D.

b) It seems, that your calculation takes into assumption, that since the 2,000 of Georgians in Iraq are called a brigade, then the other 4 brigades also have 2,000 men each. Are you sure about that? As far, as I know, brigades in general can consist of varying amount of people, with numbers like 5,000 being not unheard of. And the brigade in Iraq is kind of a special one, after all. Georgians just were accumulating in Iraq for several years, and I get the impression that, when their number reached the level eligible to be called "brigade", they just went ahead and called it that. I'm not sure, whether this special "brigade" can serve as a representative for domestic Georgian brigades.

Anyway, if points a) and b) do not hold, then I'm really at a loss of understanding. I guess, that's the difference between laymen, like me, and professionals, like you, made obvious. So, what's the deal with the numbers? ETST (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Mountain biking - definitely worth mentioning. I don't really look at steepest decent, I do look at maximum speed, I've gone 20.5 MPH. (I used CatEye Enduro to tell me the speed.) That wasn't very smart though, I almost went off a cliff. Managed to do an air jump to avoid that, the adrenaline was awesome. But I'm not doing that again! Now I prefer, somewhere between 9 MPH and 15 MPH depending on the terrain, how wide the road is, if there are any cliffs lurking nearby. They sneak up on ya!

The primary reason I mentioned the National Guard is to show that Russia's Air Force made a comeback at the war's end. Another reason is to show Saakashvili's folly: "Which strategic blunder haven't we committed yet?" "Well we still haven't used the National Guard against the SpetzNatz, Russian Artillery and Russian Air Force!" "Ok, let's try that!" Yet another reason is to point out the speed that the Russians routed the National Guard was under 20 minutes. That speed is amazing. But then again, so was Russia's performance in this war, leaving poor Pavluysha Felgenhauer completely discredited.

Spike - they're an awesome TV channel that has lots of good stuff. I'm biased, because as a military historian, I like the manly approach that Spike takes to military history, rather than History Channel's politically correct approach. I don't work for Spike, I wish I did. The video won't play for you? That sucks. Try using another browser, upgrading your browser, I don't know. It works fine for me, I just checked it.

In terms of the Iskander, I know that one hit a ammo dump and another hit a tank. As to how they hit, that's to anyone's guess, and your guess is as good as mine. It just happened very, very fast. In order to fully analyze it, I would have to witness an impact of an Iskander, from an anti-tank bunker. If one was to follow the Russian collection of weaponry, one would notice that in Gori, there were more weapons collected, than ammunition. Whereas in other bases, Poti, Senaki, etc, more ammunition than weaponry, was collected. In addition, the Georgian Separate Tank Battalion hasn't shown up, in force, after the Iskanders hit Gori.

That's a great quote selection :D In all honesty, I wish the human race would just all get along and start exploring space. I wonder what other galaxies are like, whether there is life there, what kind of life it is. I mean there's so much to do, why fight? Unfortunately some companies, such as the Military Industrial Complex, demand warfare. One can look at the Iraqi War, and notice how all companies that lobbied for it, doubled their profits, at the expense of taxpayers and research. During World War II, the Red Army invented and perfected the T-34. What came out of Iraq? And Americans are asking, "why did we go in?" So the companies need a new bogeyman, and that's was going to be Russia. After the plan to make Russia the new bogeyman failed, now the emphasis is on China. As for the oil companies being pro-Iraq, it's just simple supply and demand: with warfare, supply of oil goes down, demand goes up, (because it's used by the military,) and the price goes up. Halliburton, where Cheney holds stock, doubled its profits during the Iraqi War. So when something like this started on Wikipedia, I decided to fight it, to prevent Russia from being made into a bogeyman.

As to why that article exists, please see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list You may notice some similarities in the voting pattern and in the mailing list. Judging by the evidence gathered here, and from other Wikipedia pages, I going to appeal the article's deletion fairly soon.

About the quiz - you didn't do very well, but that's ok. When I first started military history, I thought dates weren't important. We all make mistakes. When confronted with confusing numbers, the first thing is to visit the country's military website for clarification: "The strength of Land Forces is 20 548 from which 2 176 are officers, 18 356 sergeants/corporals (contracting) and 16 civilians." http://www.mod.gov.ge/index.php?page=-10&Id=25&lang=1 Note how the separate tank battalion that was almost destroyed by Iskanders is missing. My guess is that whatever was left of it was given to the five infantry brigades. From the website, you can gather that there are 7 brigades and 6 battalions. So we find a Wikipedia article on brigades, an article that has no bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade. One thing to note is that a Battalion is smaller then a brigade. Another is this: "The typical NATO standard brigade consists of approximately 4,000 to 5,000 troops."

Oh oh. So we have 2,000 men in Iraq, but the First Brigade could have upto 5,000 men. That means that some of the first brigade, the NATO trained units, isn't in Iraq! Rather, it means that units of the fearsome, NATO trained, First Brigade fought in the 2008 South Ossetia War and got their butts kicked. In addition, there were NATO-trained Georgian special forces. If one is to look at the pre-war Georgian military chart, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Land_Forces_of_Georgia.png, one would notice that there is a tank battalion in Gori, and that the brigades have a Mixed Armor Battalion. Armor means tanks, means T-72. Furthermore a source points out that the 2,000 Georgians from Iraq were dropped via airplanes. Ever seen a T-72 being air-dropped? That can only mean that the Mixed Armor Battalion, of the NATO-trained First Brigade, participated in the 2008 South Ossetia War, because as numerous newspapers reported, only the 2,000 Georgians air-dropped from Iraq were ready to resist the Russian advance, meaning the others were routed.

Also, in general, all Brigades are similar in size, so that's a reasonable assumption to make. "I'm not sure, whether this special "brigade" can serve as a representative for domestic Georgian brigades." - They did; the rest of Georgia's brigades were to be based on the one in Iraq. However, you looked up that the total number of the land forces wasn't 37,500 - so you saw that trap, which means you have potential. I'll think of more questions later on, but since you dared to take it, and didn't fail, here's part of the ORBAT: http://artofwar.ru/k/krjukow_w_n/text_0150.shtml "Утром поступила задача прибыть на южные окраины Цхинвала. Когда мы вошли в город, бои шли по окраинам и уже затихали. По уточненной задаче нам предстояло в качестве передового отряда пересечь границу и выйти в район Гори, закрепиться на рубеже северо-западнее города, у селения Вариани, где находился телецентр. У меня было две роты неполного состава, батарея четыре орудия "Нона" и три "бэтээра", на которых установили зенитки ЗУ-23." HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: User Reenem

For your info, see Talk:Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion#Unconstructive_edits_2009-08-31 PeterWD (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured he does this in other articles too. At this point, I don't think reverting his edits can be applied to the 3RR rule. If there's no argumentation, and no sources, it's vandalism. He has to learn to show his sources, before editing articles. I guess if he gets too annoying, you can report and warn him, but his data doesn't seem to be fallacious, it's just unsourced. I'm surprised you waited 24 hours, I just revert the edits and move on. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

BBC's definition of countries by region

I noticed that you used the BBC's definition of countries by region as an example on the current Eastern Europe ArbCom case. I agree that Georgia is in Eastern Europe, and I'm sure I could find a better source, as the BBC has arbitrarily zones to suit its own editorial policy. Take Morocco for example. Classified in Africa - fair enough. Also classified in the Middle East - when Morocco is geographically quite distinctly west the United Kingdom. Just my little pet peeve and please feel to delete this message at will. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You make a great point, and I will reply, when I am better acquainted with BBC's definition. Gimme 24 hours and thank you for bringing this to my attention. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is my take on it from their portal. They have organised countries into zones, arbitrarily placing them at will.

• Africa: the Maghreb countries are duplicated in Africa and the Middle East
• Americas: the two continents of North America and South America are lumped together
• the made-up "Asia-Pacific": the continent of Asia is split up arbitrarily
• Europe: Ceuta and Melilla, whilst geographically situated in Africa, are classified under European Regions and territories.
• the ill-defined "Middle East"
• the made-up "South Asia"

A convenient way to classify countries but I wouldn't like them to have them as my navigators around the world. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I was wrong to use BBC; however all countries located in the Caucasian Region, are either part of Europe, or the Middle East. Personally, I view the region as a blending of European and Middle Eastern cultures, and I think it's just as much a part of Europe as Istanbul, which by all sane accounts is a European city. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

South Ossetia

Russavia got it saved on one of his subpages. The very first revision of that page is what I gave him a year ago. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:44, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :D

HW you gotta check it out

See that clip. It's about how Georgians were leaving all their stuff being routed by advancing Russians. I'm sure you'll appreciate this just as much, as I did =D. ETST (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I wish more people would post these kinds of clips on my talkpage :D Not Biophys though, his are just confusing and depressing, and I like the exact opposite :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Take it easier

I think you should take it easier with the edit warring. Otherwise someone will report you soon or you will be topic banned by an admin. It doesn't make any sense to edit war over relatively minor things such as this. Also, you should take it easier with Xeeron. Some of your comments about him have been, to be frank, quite obvious personal attacks. Personally, I think it's the likes of Kouber who are problematic editors at the war article, and Xeeron is much better than that. As I friendly advice, I think you should change your behaviour fairly soon, as I'm 100% sure that it won't take much longer before you're sanctioned. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is already planning to do just that, it seems. If I were you, I'd put myself on a voluntary WP:1RR right now (or perhaps even 1 revert / week to be safe), and concentrate on adding new material and finding new sources. Offliner (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't you have to break rules to get sanctioned? I haven't broken a single rule, aside posting something on Wiki:Russia's talkpage, instead of WikiProject:Russia's talkpage. If he wants to sanction me for that, let him, I'll appeal instantly. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have to -- strictly speaking -- break the rules to get sanctioned? No you don't :) I was once put on 1RR restriction myself, although I never broke 3RR. Besides, WP:EW explicitly says that editors can get blocked "with or without breaching 3RR." Offliner (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll stop the "edit warring". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Answer

Actually I haven't been to Abkhazia this year. Last time it was more than a year ago, I participated in archaeological excavations and just travelled around the place leaving about a week before the war started. I've uploaded quite a few photos from there to Commons, so you can see yourself that it's a very beautiful country. Regards. Alæxis_¿question? 17:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Archeological excavation? Sounds fun! What were you guys looking for? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks! The team is wonderful. Yep, I am. Taamu (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me a bit about Ossetia? Are you part of the Finnish diaspora of Ossetians? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'd love to.) Can I use the e-mail function via Wikipedia to send a message directly to you (IYDM)? Taamu (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeppers :D It's why it's there! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Russia Reading

If you want to know why Liberals are hated in Russia: http://www.scribd.com/doc/13835442/The-Russian-Kleptocracy-and-Rise-of-International-Organized-Crime-by-Johanna-Granville

That's pretty much it.

Dear reader, don't beleive this dude, liberals are not hated:) But many people really dislike the NGOs funded by the US STate Dept (not those funded by the EU). Which is sad, if you ask me. Yeltsin time thiefs, oligarkhs, are also very much disliked. As well as his economic advisers which have levelled the Soviet economy in several years. And, if you look at this, this and this, you'd get an idea why Yeltsin-Kuchma-Shevardnadze are mostly disliked in their countries (in a quicker way).FeelSunny (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What?! People are having disagreements?! Pro-Putin people are having disagreements?! Is this allowed?! Quick, FeelSunny, we must hide for having a disagreements, before the ebil KGB pick us up! I must continue to stereotype, or rather make fun of the idiotic stereotyping about Russians. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet, oddly enough, Putin is beloved despite his even greater thievery. When Putin invades the Crimea to "protect the rights of the persecuted Russian minority from the corrupt regime in Kiev" (which the Ossetian thing was just a "feeling out the waters" for), and starts handing out Russian passports to "Russian" Ukrainians, I'm sure RussianDupeWarrior007 will make many more "logical" arguments. Little does he know that the joke is on him and on all other Russians. How many more failed decades this time around will it take for them to realize it? Again, like before, far too many. Pathetic and, from the pov of all those who get a good laugh at Russian stupidity, far too funny. Russia, what a joke of a country. How can a country so huge, so full of resources, have a smaller gdp than little tiny Italy? An amazing fact! Here's to Russia, the dumbest nation of people on Earth!!!

Ahhh, we have a Yushenko supporter. Don't believe everything your government says. BTW, speaking of Ukraine, let's compare your "Democratic" GDP per capita, with the GDP per capita of "Dictatorial" Belarus. And let's use the CIA World Factbook. Belarus' is $11,800. Russia's is $15,800. Ukraine's is $6,900. The numbers don't really agree with you, my dear Yushenko IP. Let's talk about Putin and GDP, since you bring that up. In 1990, Russian GDP per capita was $8,340. In 1995 it dropped to $5,930. In 2000 it was $7,240, and in 2002 it was $8,230. 2002 was when Putin scored Russia's first minor victory over Chechnya. So Putin wins wars, we know that. Currently Russia's GDP per capita, is $15,800. So Putin doubled the GDP per capita in under ten years. In addition Putin kicked out foreign oil companies, ended the Caucasian Disaster in 2006, now there are explosions here and there but it's no longer a threat to Russia's stability. Thus Putin stabilized the country. He even hired Guus Hiddink so that Russia's soccer team might actually win on occasion. He forced the Oligarchs, like Abramovich, to invest in Russia.

Now let's take a look at your silly arguments. Most people in Crimea support Russia. Why would Russia invade a region that supports them? That's like saying that US will invade Canada. They may assist the Crimeans if the Ukrainian Government takes the "bomb the fuck out of civilians approach". But invade? What planet are you on? This planet is called Earth. Another fact that you present, is that Italy's GDP is greater than Russia's. However to measure the quality of life, one must look at GDP per capita, not just GDP overall. If one looks at GDP overall - China's a paradise. Countries that have higher GDP per capita then Italy, are either West European countries, oil rich countries, Japan, or Singapore. Do you see any East European countries there? The rest of your "criticism" is just silly slander that a monkey can type.

So here we have a guy who wins wars, doubles your GDP, makes the distribution of said GDP reasonable, (i.e. Russia's top 1% don't own all the wealth anymore) stabilizes your country, and quadruples your quality of life. All in under ten years! Geez, I wonder why Russians like him so much? Could it be all of the above? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the US IP that likes to call names could call his one too? PS. Please stop editing WP from airports, people always get stupid around airports:DFeelSunny (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

PPS. HistoricWarrior007, after you've been called one of us, "stupid Russians", I think I just have to give you something to commemorate this:))FeelSunny (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I R read War and Peace. I R dumb! Please help! I totally didn't get Tolstoy's dry criticism about High Society, brilliantly portrayed in the scene, where Pierre Bezuhov starts talking about current societal problems and is cut short, by a dumb joke, due to his comments being "outside of the customs". I want to be smart, and just laugh at Pierre Bezuhov's name instead! Show me the pro-Yushenko light! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I overdid it with sarcasm again ;) HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you're prophet, man: just re-read the posts 3 (your one) and 4 (the IP's):)FeelSunny (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No prophecy here. If you debate against ignorant people or Neocons, but I repeat myself, you would realize that at some point during the debate, someone will start singing "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" or "Russia will invade Ukraine". They're just that predictable :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ever read a site called lurkmore? They have a very smart funny articles on many of these themes:) See here: [7], [8] and many others, like [9] or [10]:D Overall, the site's just plain f*cking wonderful and a good rest from WP:))

So that's where Pavel Felgenhauer and Svante Cornell get their data from! It all makes so much sense now! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I do like this map though :D http://lurkmore.ru/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:Podarki.jpg, but not the highlighted caption. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=317596317&oldid=317595865

I feel this has gone on for too long and some outside intervention is needed. --Xeeron (talk) 05:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I am saddened that you still are highly antagonistic towards me. I have responded. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with TLDR? Your arguments, especially at ANI, would benefit a lot from being concise. Just an observation, do not take it to offense. (Igny (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

Thank you for the tip, I'll try to follow it from now on. I'm a newb in Wiki Customs, thank you for teaching me the ropes. Any advice is appreciated :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

На русском говорят "много букаф"))FeelSunny (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thank you. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC

I was thinking about mediation, but RfC is fine for me as well. --Xeeron (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediation usually goes after RfC fails to work. We'd need an expert on the SO War to do RfC, and we'd need to find someone that we can both agree upon. So I guess we should start looking, unless you think that we can mediate ourselves. Let me know. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessments

All in all, if you see an article that is not assessed correctly or which you believe improved a lot since last time it had been assessed, please just go ahead and re-assess it; there's no need to ask me or anyone else for that matter. Assessments only serve as rough guidelines for us to see where the important stuff is. Anyway, since you've asked, on this particular article, I would agree that it probably qualifies as B-class now. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:23, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Part of was just to get a second opinion, to see if I'm on par with a more experienced editor, and it turns out that I am :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not rocket science, I'll tell you that much :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:46, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Revealing classified information now, eh? ;) Actually, I thought I was doing ok, but just wanted to be sure :D Maybe I should take a look at some military-related Russian Wiki Articles, except those occurring in the 21st century? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not those occurring in the 21st century, if I may ask?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:27, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm already looking at those :D I was one of the first to theorize that one does not need 20 years to pass in order to study the war, and that one year, from the starting date, and two years if it is still ongoing should be enough. As such, all 21st century wars are a major research interest of mine. Additionally, I interview soldiers fighting in these wars, and it's a lot easier interviewing the newer generation of soldiers, who aren't as afraid to speak out against their government, whatever said government is, rather than the older generation, some of whom are somehow misled to think that criticism of the government is Unpatriotic. Although on this war the Russian soldiers that I've interviewed, except on a couple of points, (the TU-22 launch, not forcing Tskhinval civvies to evacuate, poor media coordination) are overwhelmingly in favor of the Russian Government's action. And, contrary to the official Kremlin Line, most believe that Putin, not Medvedev was in charge. "This feels so fucking great. I've actually gained respect for Putin. After 1996, [First Chechen War] it's so fucking nice to have that I respect. Damn straight, Russia's back, don't fuck with us." That's pretty much been the consensus. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a longer response than I expected, but thanks anyway. You do, however, know that interviews that you yourself conduct do not qualify as reliable sources, right? Just thought I'd ask; sorry if you are already well aware of that. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:53, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

The interviews give me a good perspective on what actually happened, and then I can look at published sources, such as MDB, to determine which sources are quality analysis, and which sources are full of shit, like that one Svante Cornell guy ranting about Russians outnumbering Georgian 2 to 1, or Saakashvili talking about 1200 tanks.

The interviews reliable for me, and other military historians who study this issue. However they're published anonymously, edited to protect the interviewees, and granted limited availability. Thus, I cannot use them on Wikipedia, which is fine with me. Additionally, I cannot use my own work as per WP:COI. On a funnier note: http://www.apsny.ge/2009/conf/1254358459.php HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges

Odd insertion

Do you know who had inserted this ridiculous text? I can't seem to find the culprit from the article history. This guy needs to be lectured about WP:Verifiability, not truth, etc. Offliner (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit surprised that you couldn't find the author. Showed up when I queried article history. Actually, the comment (though likely incorrectly inserted) is germane. Anybody/source asserting a naval blockade by the Russians of Georgia during the August 2008 conflict should cite some source facts rather than merely making an assertion. If we only go with the rule that you merely have to cite a source, any number of insertions into the overall article should be considered valid and not removed. However, I believe that the purpose of the Wiki process is to ferret out the "truth". To do so we need facts and not undocumented assertions. An article in an apparently reputable publication which reflects the author's opinion is only that, the author's opinion - unless some provable facts are cited.Moryak (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment was incorrectly inserted. If one questions a source, it should be done by providing a counterpoint, or questioning the original source, not by writing "THIS QUOTE IS INCORRECT". One has the "Dubious-Discuss" and the "Citation Needed" tags for this purpose. Prior to attaching such tags, one must make an argument on the discussion page. On the other hand, it looked to me like a newbie mistake, so I'm not going to go after the culprit. We all make mistakes, and what I've let slide in the past, is much more egregious, than the newbie mistake presented above.

Now unto the problem: Fedorov stated that the map is incorrect because it includes the Russian Blockade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_South_Ossetia_war_en.svg However, the way the map portrays the Russian Blockade, is that the blockade doesn't extend all the way to Batumi. A proper naval blockade covers the entire country. What the map presents, is a partial naval blockade.

The IP presented evidence, which is most likely questionable, that on August 9, At 16:40, Russian navy blocked Moldovan ship “Lotus-1,” carrying wheat, from entering the Poti port" and "August 11, At 20:25, Ministry of Economic Development of Georgia was notified that Russian Black Sea Fleet prevented cargo ships “Castor” and “Asha” from entering the Poti port. This, if true, certainly signifies the Naval Blockade of Poti; nevertheless, there are no sources confirming the Naval Blockade of Batumi that I could find. The Report of Xinhua states: MOSCOW, Aug. 10 (Xinhua) -- Russian warships had arrived at Georgian Black Sea coast to prevent weapons from landing by sea, Interfax news agency quoted a Russian navy source as saying Sunday. "The crews were assigned the task to not allow arms and military hardware supplies to reach Georgia by sea," the source told Interfax. The Black Sea Fleet comprises missile cruiser Moskva, patrol boat Smetlivy, three large amphibious ships and logistics ships, the source said. Meanwhile, the Abkhaz law enforcement agencies confirmed that several Georgian warships attempted on Saturday to approach the coast of Abkhazia. But the attempts were curbed by ships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet."

In other words, we have a possible blockade of Poti, and no blockade of Batumi. As such, I believe that we should clarify, on the map if necessary, and definitely in the text, that no Russian Naval Blockade of Batumi existed, and as such, no Russian Naval Blockade of Georgia existed. At best, there is a partial Russian Naval Blockade. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Topic-banned

HistoricWarrior, with this edit I feel you have crossed a line. You (and others) were warned some weeks ago that the permanent hostility and edit-warring on that article would not be tolerated forever. For the aggressive "ownership" attitude, hostility, threats and personal attacks expressed in this latest posting of yours, in connection with the months-long history of near-permanent edit-warring on the same article, you are now topic-banned from the 2008 South Ossetia War article, all articles related to it, and all related talk pages, for a period of two months. This topic ban will be logged at the Arbcom enforcement section of WP:DIGWUREN. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of Staberinde's provocations was to get me topic-banned. Nor did I ever claim ownership of anything. I haven't deleted a single discussion from the talkpage, that wasn't advertising SPAM. I have always tried to discuss with the editors, when they brought up constructive edits. The purpose of that post was exposing a tactic, not to own any topic. I haven't even had any previous warns. So I expose a tactic used to topic ban pro-Russian Wiki:Editors, and you go ahead and topic ban me. Without a single warning.

I believe you cannot give me a topic-ban, as you have a conflict of interest. As per here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring. There you claimed that the article had permanent edit-warring, but you failed to provide any proof. Indeed, at the time you made that post, there was none. You further showed that you had an antagonism towards my views here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_27#Italics_vs_Quotes. Nor do I see any relations to WP:DIGWUREN, as I didn't even participate in that WP. What is the real reason for this ban? What an instant two-month topic ban, over exposure of a tactic? Why a two-month topic ban, when all I did was expose a tactic on the talkpage? And considering that that article is where 90% of my edits are, you have effectively banned me from Wikipedia for two months. Over exposing a tactic on the talkpage? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Digwuren Arbcom decisions relate to all editors working on contentious Eastern European topics. You were warned of impending sanctions here and here. The appeals route is described in the Arbcom decision I linked you to: you can appeal either directly to Arbcom, or to the relevant noticeboard, i.e. WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)