Welcome!
Hello, Tananka, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Gb
T/
c
21:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
AfD is still in effect and you are welcome to contribute. Biophys ( talk) 03:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
2008 South Ossetia war has had a section Disinformation campaign during the 2008 South Ossetian war moved to Disinformation campaign during Russian-Georgian war. while leaving a one-sentence summary on the main page. Then it was marked for deletion and db:attack... So anyhow, I added db:move after reading policy so that if deleted it would simply be moved back to the main article. But this was removed twice, at first I thought this was an attempt to have the section deleted entirely, but then it was deleted again. This time because "the speedy notice alleges that it's uncontroversial, obviously not the case here"... So now I am confused and wondering if my additions to the discussion page/article are appropriate and what should be done about the matter. Did I evaluate and react to the situation incorrectly?
Please stop adding misplaced warnings on everyones pages. Thanks. Ostap 03:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
You wouldn't happen to be User:M.V.E.i., would you? Ostap 03:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
lol, no. I don't mind who everyone may be, nor who you think I may be. I'll ignore that. I offer you a truce and a proper mediation instead, there's a real challenge.
Sorry, but I had to delete your warning to me as misleading. Unfortunately, that was you who made four reverts today in this article. Biophys ( talk) 03:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Here are the diffs:
Do you agree? Biophys ( talk) 03:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
That is not for me to judge, note the warnings I gave, the prior request for discussion on articles and points. While the article additions had been repeatedly vandalized by removing all info, instead of fixing details. Things have to be discussed point by point. Two editors refused mediation, yourself and Ostap R. This after reasonable discussion and agreement had been put forward with Windyhead after deletion of all references and information without discussion of the actual material. It is a shame, really. Discussion is much more interesting than just a silly edit war with no substance. I have put forward points in support of referenced materials added, and would greatly enjoy a balanced debate of ideas.-- Tananka ( talk) 04:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Tananka ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Whole sourced material was removed repetitively. Was not duly warned. Would like to seek mediation.
Decline reason:
No, you don't get mediation, you get to stop edit warring, which is what you were blocked for. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Dude... calm down! Your block only lasts 24 hours. Let me just say this for the next admin: there is some credence to Tanaka's claim to have not understood the 3RR. On
WP:AN3 he reported two users for having broken 3RR between them, which is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding. Nonetheless I'm not very confident that this user wouldn't jump directly back into an edit war if he was unblocked. Oh, and Tanaka: you might want to read
Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks.
Mango
juice
talk
20:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I demand that there be fair judgement based on the cases merits, it is ridiculous that experienced administrators could not resolve the dispute in an adequate manner, nor judge both reported cases and plaintiffs on their merits and actions. I spent a huge amount of time reading various policy and regulation, and have had the respect to attempt my best as to follow these. Yes, I should probably have undertaken conflict resolution, clearly, since reporting two users is allegedly a fundamental misunderstanding. The actions of others, deleting material repetitively in such a manner, without appropriate respect for the discussion and elaboration process, could be termed vandalism maybe. So calling upon the 3RR rule seemed a fair response to repetitive abusive deletion from various users in apparent unison! CHECK THE EVIDENCE. IT IS REFERENCED AND VERIFIABLE. JUST LIKE THE REFERENCES THAT WERE DISRESPECTFULLY BRUSHED AWAY WITHOUT PROPER DISCUSSION. Of course I am furious, when such an injustice has obviously been perpetrated and demands for proper review have been met with denigrating remarks. All your moves are recorded I must point out, whether administrator or not. Wikipedia policy must be respected administrator or not. In absence of conclusive evidence, unless an Administrator is willing to review the case properly, I demand that ban be removed due to inconclusive evidence and for denigration of my person to be cleared! Again, unless this matter is dealt with in a satisfactory manner, it will be taken to higher levels. MangoJuice, you deliberated on matters pertaining to this case before "reviewing" my appeal. WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT IN REPORTING THREE REVERTS YOU MUST ONLY REPORT ONE AT A TIME. REPORTING BOTH EDITORS IN QUESTION MADE THINGS CLEARER AND CONCISE, AND WAS THEREFORE A LOGICAL STEP. YET IT WAS DISMISSED DU TO AN APPARENTLY UNDEFINED RULE!-- Tananka ( talk) 20:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me clarify my previous reason a bit. There are certain recognized "exceptions" to the
3-revert rule, but nothing you've described here fits the bill. That's what I mean when I say you have "no excuse." I know you have reasons why you reverted the same article 4 times in 24 hours; that is always the case. I'm also sure you believe your reasons are right.. but apparently other people disagree with your reasons. Administrators aren't super-editors: we don't have the right, or the expertise, to rule authoritatively on content issues. So it's hard for me, or any administrator, to decide whether your reasons are good or bad. But more importantly, it's irrelevant. Even if your reasons are good ones, and even if your edits should eventually prevail, it doesn't mean it's reasonable for you to
edit-war over them. As for the warnings issue, let me point out
WP:BP#Education and warnings: warnings are not a prerequesite for blocks. Even if we accept that you were ignorant of the 3RR (which seems odd, if you are trying to warn other users about it: you certainly at least had the chance to be informed), we still come to the point that whether or not you were aware at the time, you were actually edit warring, and you haven't indicated that you aren't going to continue doing so if you get unblocked.
Mango
juice
talk
20:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
" Please, Tananka, take a deep breath. You're upset, obviously - nothing wrong with that. But you need to take a deep breath and calm down. I'm reading through the (extensive) material you've posted, as Mangojuice recommended. But I can guarantee that, whatever circumstances surround the block itself, no administrator will unblock when they are being shouted at, and your capitalized statements are tantamount to shouting at us. Please take a deep cleansing breath, go have a cup of tea, and we can continue discussing the matter.
UltraExactZZ
Claims ~
Evidence
20:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)"
I have just read your comment, and appreciate you looking into this. Ok I am starting to feel better now, at least it will be discussed. And if I am judged to be in the wrong after fair review, then I of course respect that. I also hereby apologise if I have caused offence in my anger... and am prepared to withdraw and personally apologize any unfair statements deemed to have been made upon the actions of any others if that was the case. -- Tananka ( talk) 20:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
{{unblock|1=Sorry for being upset, please understand my position and the repercussion of an unfair judgement. Please remove ban so that conflict resolution can be undertaken. Please review the nature of edits for initiation and promotion of edit warring. Resolution and mediation sought. Call for cease-fire on edit warring.
Initial entry
}}-- Tananka ( talk) 21:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC) re-edited -- Tananka ( talk) 22:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I hereby accept the recommendation that Dispute Resolution is the best initial response to apparent repetitive refusal to talk. However, I do believe the whole case should be reviewed on it's merits and it be considered that my edits and attempts to debate fairly were in response to edit warring initiated from various parties. Which escalated to 3RR complaints. Again, I encourage for dispute resolution to be undertaken as a result. Unless action is deemed necessary.
I won't be pulled into an edit war again. I won't be pulled into an edit war again. I won't be pulled into an edit war again. I won't be pulled into an edit war again. I won't be pulled into an edit war again. I won't be pulled into an edit war again.
:-/
My reverts can also be included if necessary. Link to talk page can also be included. Any further evidence deemed necessary? -- Tananka ( talk) 22:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Material added:
According to Russia: 127 Pentagon advisors [1] According to Ossetia: mercenaries or instructors [2] [3] [4] [5]
According to BBC: hundreds of instructors [6]
Unknown number of alleged tank crews [2]
2,500 to 3,000 mercenaries [7]
At least 37,000 total
"Vitaly Churkin, Russian ambassador to the UN, claimed that there were 127 Pentagon advisors working in Georgia and on August 7, just hours before Georgia attacked Tskhinvali, U.S. and Georgian forces had finished large military exercises, dubbed “Immediate Response.” Moscow maintains that Americans trained and gave weapons to their Georgian ally. In an interview with the Moscow-based Nezavisimaya Gazeta that is to come out in Wednesday’s issue, Dmitri Rogozin, Russia’s ambassador to NATO, said that an American representative blocked an emergency meeting of the Russia-NATO Council on Tuesday. Mr. Rogozin said he believed that the Americans simply didn’t want him to ask tough questions about Washington’s involvement in current developments in Georgia in the presence of European allies. The diplomat said the meeting would be held behind closed doors instead because Russia didn’t want this information to become public. Rogozin claimed that sooner or later the NATO-Russia Council would stage such a meeting on South Ossetia."
"Russia Today quoted South Ossetia's Eduard Kokoity that "Ukrainians and mercenaries from the Baltics as well as nationals from other countries were involved in the fighting, as 'foreigners have been found among their bodies.'" South Ossetia's envoy to Russia was quoted that "in yesterday's most recent tank attack, the advancing tanks were supposedly crewed by Ukrainians. Two unidentified bodies found today... Americans... who were probably either mercenaries or instructors in the Georgian armed forces."
Authorities in the unrecognized republic of South Ossetia claim that dark-skinned mercenaries took part in the attack on Tskhinvali, reports RIA Novosti, citing representative of the South Ossetian president in Russia Dmitry Medoev. He said there were bodies of many Georgian soldiers on the streets on Tskhinvali. “There were blacks among the dead, who were probably either mercenaries or instructors in the Georgian armed forces,” Medoev said.
In another report, a woman interviewed by Russia Today in Tsknivali, South Ossetia, talked about the presence of Georgian troops with American insignias. “There are lots of bodies over there, a lot of people have been killed, mostly Ossetians, but also Georgians, they had American emblems on their forearms and they were in black uniforms,” she said. (Flash Video is embedded from Russia Today youtube channel) At 10 minutes, 30 seconds into this video, a South Ossetian woman claims Georgian troops had American emblems.
The article links further to more sources, and there is nothing suspicious about it. Or anything that could be considered unreliable. It just quotes from various sources. The reference is given for the RT testimony link and transcript. All in that article is referenced and verifiable. No actual original research is included from it.
An American mercenary has been captured by Russian forces along with a number of Georgian soldiers according to a report http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2008/08/american-soldiercitizen-captured-in.html from the Russian news website Izvestia, providing more evidence that the U.S. and NATO are covertly supporting the Georgian army in a proxy war with Russia. According to the report, the mercenary is an African-American who is a NATO instructor and an ordinance specialist. He has now been transferred to the Russian base of Vladikavkaz.
The story also backs up previous reports of dead black Americans having been found in Tskhinvali, the capital city of South Ossetia.
U.S. soldiers recently conducted training programs where they instructed Georgian soldiers how to deal with unexploded ordinance as part of the Georgia Train and Equip Program.
Another report from the Russia daily Kommersant http://kommersant.com/p-13081/mercenaries_Georgia_U.S._instructor states that thousands of mercenaries from numerous different countries are fighting on the Georgian side and are being “commanded by the U.S. military instructors.”
“The U.S. military instructors directly command and coordinate actions of mercenaries without being involved in actual fighting, the source specified. According to intelligence data, there are roughly 1,000 military instructors of the United States in Georgia,” states the report.
“Task force of Russia has annihilated a few groups of mercenaries. Some of mercenaries have been captured, and investigators are working with them, the source said."
The president of South Ossetia claims mercenaries took part in Georgia’s offensive against the breakaway republic, according to Russia’s RIA news agency.
In a related development http://en.rian.ru/world/20080811/115953426.html, Russia FSB has detained 10 Georgian intelligence service officers who were allegedly preparing terrorist attacks inside Russia.
“We have detained 10 agents of the Georgian special services who were spying on military facilities and preparing terrorist attacks, including on Russian territory,” Alexander Bortnikov said at a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
Russia has today launched new forays into Georgia itself even after Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili signed a cease-fire pledge. Russia claims that Georgia has not honored the cease-fire and continues to attack Russian positions."
BBC radio source / direct link to BBC would be even better.
Thousands of mercenaries are fighting for Georgia in this burning conflict with South Ossetia. They are commanded by the U.S. military instructors, RIA Novosti reported with reference to a high-ranked officer of Russia’s military intelligence.
“From 2,500 to 3,000 mercenaries fight against Russia’s peacekeepers on behalf of Georgia,” the unnamed source said. Amid them are the natives of Ukraine, some Baltic states and the Caucasus regions.
The U.S. military instructors directly command and coordinate actions of mercenaries without being involved in actual fighting, the source specified. According to intelligence data, there are roughly 1,000 military instructors of the United States in Georgia.
There are plenty of references to choose from. Some each may consider more reliable than others. Alex Jones was invited on Russia Today as an "investigative journalist", that is Russia Today. Also Mr Jones has been invited on other US mainstream media to discuss current affairs. Also there is an infowar going on between media in this case, so it seems fitting not to dismiss an "expert" on the subject that is recognised by a great many Americans.
When instead of trying to match sources with what one may consider reliable, the whole material is deleted. What should it be called?
--
Tananka (
talk)
00:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
"misrepresentations" - Which ones, please be more specific and it can be corrected "allegations" Much information is allegations, that can include NGO information over casulties etc.. "conspiracy" - Two or more people planning against others - So if it took more than one to plan an attack it's a conspiracy. "theories" - All versions are theories.
Ostap R, until points are challenged correctly and demonstrated to be invalid, How can anything can be removed? -- Tananka ( talk) 00:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Whatever, we'll have dispute resolution when I get out of jail :/.-- Tananka ( talk) 01:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
You need to realize that consensus is cleary against the inclusion of this in the infobox, with multiple users supporting its removal and only you supporting its inclusion. Ostap 02:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:CONS"Reasonable consensus-building
Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action (editing), or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on."
Consensus means that everyone should agree.-- Tananka ( talk) 03:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As all this material is added, anyone may contribute to turn it into a more cohesive whole. Then, more text may be added, and it may also be rewritten.
WP:EPDuring this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. Of course, we do not have to like it; we may occasionally criticize substandard work, in addition to simply correcting it. It is most important that it is corrected, if it can be corrected. For text that is beyond hope we will remove the offending section to the corresponding talk page, or, in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The decision to take the latter action should not be made lightly, however. Preserve information
Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to:
* rephrase * correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content * move text within an article or to another article (existing or new) * add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced * request a citation by adding the citation needed tag
Exceptions include:
* original research * duplication or redundancy * irrelevancy * patent nonsense * copyright violations * inaccuracy (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion) * unsourced controversial claims about living persons
Ahaaaa, ok. I hadn't seen that. Thanks for pointing it out. My view on concensus was based on polling results not necesarily demonstrating concensus. Point taken, and much appreciated-- Tananka ( talk) 05:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)