User talk:HistoricWarrior007

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)

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)

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)