User talk:Nanobear~enwiki

Web brigades

Hello, Offliner. I've read your statement on the talk page of Web brigades article, as well as some of your recent contributions, and I think you are a right person to rework the article in view of neutrality. I know of Wikipedian rule "be bold", but neutrality is not my strong side. In case you decide to work on the article, you have my assistance wherever you need it. Good luck! ellol (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks to the many edits by you and other people, the article does seem more balanced already. I don't know what else I could do, especially since Biophys is often reverting changes to the article. Offliner (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Award!

		The WikiChevrons
		Good work on the RT-2UTTH Topol M, SS-N-23, Buk missile system articles. In recognition of your efforts towards maintaining military history and weaponry articles, please accept these Weaponry Task Force WikiChevron! --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 17:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict

You caught me in the middle of what was a bigger edit, so I reimposted my final version. The reasons for deleting that part are, first, that the new version makes it clear that both civilian and military targets were hit and, second and more important, there is collateral damage in ALL wars. If we include an excusing statement next to each civilian dead, we'll end up with an article twice the size. --Xeeron (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I included that statement because I wanted to express Russia's military motivation of launching attacks on Gori and beyond. I think this is important to include at that point in the article so that the reader knows not only what happened, but has some idea of why it happened. Perhaps I'll be looking for a better statement for that purpose. Although, as you said, it could already be clear from the context. But it could be made more explicit. Offliner (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia again

Recently found this: [1].

I think it should be incorporated in the article, probably along with the following:

[2]

As for Erosi Kitsmarishvili we already have an article on him.

I have veraious COI problems over this and I like the way you and the other fellow are reworking the article. You probably have a good idea where this info should go. Best of luck. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out those links. I added Kitsmarishvili's statement to "Discussion about responsibility for the war" -> "Other statements". Offliner (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

NYTimes article about Gaza Policemen

Thanks for pointing out the changed NYTimes link.

The link has been fixed here [3].

I also think this is relevant [4].

--John Bahrain (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I saw the discussion, but a subsequent discussion including a complete proposal by me, has been discussed commented and thoroughly modified. The issue of the truce didn't come up at all. While I disagree with your views on the importance of the truce (very little sources say this, including either side - the contentious issue is the Hamas rockets, not the truce), I agree we should discuss it. I am sorry you were under the impression you act with a discussion in mind, perhaps it was lost in the huge clutter and tendency to star new threads instead of continuing the existing ones. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Web brigades....again

I think you may want to look at web brigades. The article owner has again reinserted all that information which is not relevant to this Russian conspiracy theory, and now User:Martintg is playing the team game by claiming consensus and reinserting said info again. What do you think? Is it about time this piece of rubbish article is taken to AfD, and have this thrashed out for once and for all, because the entire thing is based upon the views of a single nutcase reporter. Anyway, your views on this are welcome on the article talk page, as it seems this is going to happen every other month when the owner of the article decides to re-include everything again. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

SO war lead

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

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

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

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

Alexander Glukhov

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

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

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

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

1991 SO war

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

Litvinenko article

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

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

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

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

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

Hi

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

Wrong

Just stop complaining and READ THE REFERENCES. They are accurate

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

3RR

Hi Offliner, I see your discussion, and you may want to point out Wikipedia:3RR#Not_an_entitlement. It doesn't entitle an editor to 3 reverts every day, but when it is used to game the system as it is being done (in order to protect their version of an article), it is clearly edit warning, and goes against the spirit of 3RR. Make it very clear to said admin that the spirit of policy is just as important at the word of the policy. In particular, make note of Wikipedia:GAMETYPE#Examples. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And you may also like to take note of User_talk:Russavia/Archive_8#3RR. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That last link was in relation to this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Putinomics

I do not mind the way it is now in Putinism, but if you feel strongly that there is a distinct ecomomic policy that is Putinism-specific, perhaps there ought to be a separate section (or even an article) on that. Apropos the tags: look, if you say there are "problems", please expound those clearle based on the PW policies so that those could be removed by all of us. Otherwise it looks like malign glee and obstructionism.Muscovite99 (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few Google hits on Putinomics, though -- [5].Muscovite99 (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said in the article talk page, Putinism is unbalanced since it includes only criticism and barely manages to mention any of his achievements. I right I cannot say what should be removed, for now I'd just add things and make sure positive aspects are mentioned in the lead also. As long as the unbalance persists, the neutrality tag should stay. Offliner (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• That is exactly what i have been saying: if you believe something should be added -- add. But the thing is that the article is not called "Putin's policies". The term itself is not entirely neutral, as is clearly stated in the beginning. Also, the very philosophy of opposing "criticicism" to "achievements" is POV -- who and how defines what is criticism and what is the stating of facts. As per WP:VER, facts for us are verifiable opinions on the relevant subject. In fact, i cannot see any "criticism" in the article whatever: mere assessments. Then again, i do not mind you adding another section on the economy.Muscovite99 (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"The article is not called Putin's policies." - I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The lead says: "Putinism (The Putin regime) is the ideology, priorities, and policies of the Putin system of government." Offliner (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please adapt

Such phrases as "The current decade has been an economic boon for Russia" require grammatical adaptation - you cannot just pluck paragraphs from newspaper reports and place them in articles. It looks weird, especially a few months later: avoid present perfect, indicate precise time, etc. Also, it often amounts to violation of copy rights.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Let us be reasonable

I've removed the out-of-date socio-economic data that you put in Putinism. First off, the article is not about Russia's socio-economic dynamics between 1999 and July (yes, you do not want to reflect anything beyond that) 2008. As is clear from the defintion, the article is about the essence and evolution of a certain political regime and a concommitant ideology. Rising (or otherwise, as is the case now!) wages is quite incidental to the subject. If you insist on having this stuff there, there would have to be all the negative data from the recent developments (and i can assure you there's plenty of extremely negative stuff on that, read, just to get a taste of that, [6] or [7]) as well. Is this the way we are to take? I strongly feel this would make an article into a joke. I do agree that the fact that the economy grew between 1999 and October 2009 is an important backround factor for the evolution of Putinism until then - and this fact is indeed mentioned in the article several times within the appropriate context. Every one in Russia (incl. the official experts) now agree that what had been going on in the economy until July 2008 was essentially one of the multiples bubbles occuring in the US and its economic periphery (i.e. the rest of the world) - this is not a matter of Putin's policies: the same was going on in the USSR in the latter half of the 1970s under entirely different system and policies. I would not mind expanding the "Liberal economic policies" section though as this ostensibly WAS (until recently) part of the regime's directions, albeit with many other facors at play, which would question its genuine "liberalism".Muscovite99 (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New Figures

I dont see a lot of consensus among the editors. When I took it to the talk page, I was provided with an even greater figure than I had thought, 74 dead. I clicked on "discussion" and did not see ANYONE say that 48 had been killed. This is on the most recent talk page. I briefly inspected previous archives and found a lot of people supported the 71/74 figure.

Your request

I don't know if you saw this, but someone has fulfilled a request that you had at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#The_Tragedy_of_Russia.27s_Reforms. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I had actually found the page a few days earlier, but forgot to cancel the request. Interesting info from the book: A journalist who in mid-August 1999 travelled to Karamakhi and interviewed some villagers and their military Commander General Dzherollak, wrote: "The Wahhabis' trucks go all over Russia. Even one wrong move in Moscow or Makhachkala, they warn, will lead to bombs and bloodshed everywhere." According to the journalist the Wahhabis had told him, "if they start bombing us, we know where our bombs will explode."[15] In the last days of August, Russian military launched an aerial bombing of the villages. Offliner (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Georgian rocket launchers.jpg

You put that one back in the article. Can you give a link to the origin of this picture? The one in the file only delivers the picture itself, no description or anything else. That leaves 2 problems: First the ad in the top right corner and second the context. From all I see on the picture, that could be any countries rocket launchers, being anywhere, doing anything. A military expert could maybe tell the exact model, but thats about it. I agree that having a photo of the artillery would be nice, but compared to this one, the old one was better. --Xeeron (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The picture is from here: [8]. All of the images on that page are in public domain, by the way. Offliner (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you know who or what the "MP" is? It also says "photo AP", which would mean it is a copyrighted photo. --Xeeron (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: I did a quick google check and confirmed that it is an AP photo (a television capture to be exact: http://patdollard.com/2008/08/war-breaking-russia-bombs-georgia-as-georgia-attacks-russian-backed-province/). At http://iphone.foxnews.com/slideshow/0/399962-Georgia-Russia-Very-Close-to-War-Over-Breakaway-Republic-South-Ossetia.html you'll also find the photo in a series of 3. The first one of the series is, imho, much better, but that doesn't help as long as it is copyrighted as well. --Xeeron (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In any case, all the pictures on the page [9] have been released into public domain by Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The permission/license is in the picture file. Offliner (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I can make a page with photos on it and write "all photos here are public domain" on it. That does not change the fact that they are still copyrighted. --Xeeron (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Math notation style

Hello. Please see my recent edits to approximate string matching. Note that

• WP:MOSMATH exists.
• The following differ from each other:

E(i-1,j)

E(i − 1, j)

Specifically: variables are italicized (digits and punctuation are NOT); spaces precede and follow the minus sign (I've made them non-breakable for reasons that should be apparent); a minus sign is not just a hyphen; it's a proper minus sign.

• The following differ from each other:

O(n^3 * m)

O(n³ m)

Superscripts and subscripts are available. The use of the carat (n^3) for exponentiation and the asterisk for multiplication should be reserved for typing with limited character sets in which nothing more sophisticated can be done. Also, you italicized the "3"; only the n and the m should be italicized. (Whether the "O" should be in italics is a subtler question, I think.)

Michael Hardy (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I was going to fix the notation later, but I've been busy with other things. Offliner (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the 2008 South Ossetia War article

There is criciticism of the ISDP source, and a discussion on it, and some editors making edits without even bothering to discuss them first. Thank you. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Turkish Airlines Flight 1951

On 25 February, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Turkish Airlines Flight 1951, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Your reply at the noticeboard

It is not that I want to disencourage you from replying there, but I perfectly know your position from the South Ossetia war talk page. That notice board only makes sense if we get people who are not regulars to comment, otherwise we might as well leave everything at the article's talk page. --Xeeron (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Somehow I just couldn't resist repeating my view on the board. Offliner (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war

No offense, but I think you have been completely overreacting. I don't think there was an "edit war" going on before you came in, just normal disagreement over content and wordings. Furthermore, there was discussion going on on the talk page. Your actions (locking the page for an extended period of time and making threats on the talk page) have been helpful. Offliner (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The editing with accusations and misleading edit summaries is not productive which is why I am watching the article now. I protected the page initially for 3 days but finding that all that happened on the page was more arguing and pointing fingers I figured a few more days for you guys to come to some sort of reasonable compromise on a few of the issues would be helpful. We shall see if it actually is in practice. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that your actions have not been helpful (forgot the "not" last time.) Offliner (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop vandalising the article

you are putting the same assertions many times. The lead defines Putinism - not expound reforms - there are other articles for that. You creat multiple refs to the same marginal Finnish source (everybody knows on whose payroll Finnish authors have been)...Muscovite99 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the material you have been inserting all the time, it is clear to me that the article is about Putin's policies. And even reforms that have lead to positive results are part of those. You clearly want the article to contain only negative things, and are removing everything that has the slightest hint of positiveness. The sources I've used are credible. Please stop reverting all edits done by other people, you don't own the article. Offliner (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• First, all the quotes i use have "Putinism" in them - as this is the subject. Yours do NOT. I agree that some socio-economic data can be mentioned as background. But you are creating several duplcating sections saying the same thing - there is a section "Other economic piolicies...".Muscovite99 (talk) 19:21, 28 February 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) 17:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Repetition?

Can you point out to me where this sentence is repeated? I see a remark calling the Georgian account not conclusive, but none for Grist's story. --Xeeron (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The same information is repeated just a few sentences later: The OSCE itself, while refusing to discuss its internal findings, stood by the accuracy of its work but urged caution in interpreting it too broadly. Monitoring activities in certain areas at certain times couldn't be taken in isolation to provide a comprehensive account. Offliner (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

re We Don't Wanna Put In

Why are you so sure that this is a case of clear copy-vio? Did you talk to the Georgian proprietor? Or are you just presuming that the external link should go because you don't support the inclusion of the link for other reasons? --Hapsala (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Answered on the article talk page. Offliner (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

expression of disappointment

I'm severely disappointed at the level of silliness you have descended to in the Put In debacle. [10] is obviously a Georgia State Broadcasting website dedicated to Georgia's participation in the Eurovision Song Contest. Did you even take a look at the site? Sheesh. :-P

And don't now try to argue that you can't read a single word of Georgian. It's so predictable, and it's even worse an argument. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on 2008 South Ossetia war‎

Hello! No, I didn't know about that. Thank you very much for the information! I didn't want to violate the rules, I just wanted to remove the word separatist from the context. I started the discussion, but some editors prefer undoing rather than discussing. Now, as I can see, there is no result. Taamu (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re [11]:

Do you have any reliable source saying that during and after the war, villages of one side were removed? Claims of genocide require rather good sourcing; unless you can support the claim that Georgian villages are no longer there, the Reuters' report from immediately before the war should be considered relevant. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Reuters article is from August 8, and a lot has happened after that, so I'd assume the information there is no longer current, although I'm not claiming that it isn't. Unless there is a more recent source making the same claim, we should add "Until the war...", or better yet: "On August 8, South Ossetia consisted of a checkerboard..." in front of the claim. Offliner (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Link for your interest

[12] That's just a link for your interest. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Vexatious litigation

I've just read 3 of your 3RR reports and approved none of them. I suggest you do fewer, but of higher quality. Do another one, within the next month, that gets turned down, and I will ban you from the AN3 page. To all your "opponents" reading this... please stop the edit warring too William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I provided more evidence for the first and third cases. As for the first case, you can see that he reinserts a piece of text in his revert number 3 - he did the same in his first and fourth reverts, thus the third one has to be a revert as well. Offliner (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I agree. Still, quality not quantity in future, please William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to remember that. Did you also take a look at the additional evidence I provided for Colchicum's case after you posted your initial "no vio" conclusion? Offliner (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Digwarrior is stalking you now too

Notice how he has never edited this article before, yet finds it in order to "rvv". If this is not WP:TEDIOUS by Digwuren, I really don't know what is. "rvv" is not a reason for blind reverting other's edits, and he only does so to piss you off. If this stalking becomes a problem for you, let me know, and I will file RFAR straight away in regards to it. His accusation that both you and I are neo-nazis almost got him block the other day, and I know that Arbcom will not look upon such things kindly, and even moreso so as the warrior is only recently back from a year long block. The sooner POV-pushing Digwarrior is gone, the better off the project will be. Of course, it would be better if he changed his ways -- one would have thought that a year long ban would have helped with that, but it obviously hasn't changed his way one iota. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at your other edits as you know I often do, and agree with the removal of WP:ELs from articles. If they are good enough for EL, they should be included within the article itself as references. It's good to see that another member of that project thinks like that too. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)