User talk:Chrystal Blue Moon

2008 South Ossetian Conflict[edit]

I added an '''{{underconstruction}}''' tag to the article to give you some time to develop it. If developing the article is going to take long, it might be a good idea to add a '''{{hangon}}''' tag on the article and explain that you are working on it. Also, don't remove speedy deletion tags from the article; not only is this technically against the rules, but it tends to get your talk page cluttered with warning messages as multiple people check the article and then forward it for CSD :). Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help[edit]

Right now on Russian TV they showed it. Georgia started a war on SOuth Ossetia. Use google! Help with the article, please, i'm a new user. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrystal Blue Moon (talk • contribs) 21:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that is about the fastest article i have ever seen regarding recent events! While YAHOO news seems to cover it, even CNN does not have an article about it yet. I edited the article a little bit to cover some more sources, and removed the CSD tag as it is void by now. Depending how this article end up, it might be suitable for wikinews. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before i forget, excellent start on this article, in particular with the sourcing. Great job for a new user! :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The POV problem[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right now the case is you try to make an edit, 10 people edit at the same time. I belive there will be nutrality. Edit wars--->Fighters getting tyred--->Some fall asleep, some shoot themselves, and some agree on a concensus. Edit wars is a wonderful thing. What i try to do is make shure the terms will be ok. The sources for the claims are in the text itself. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, another trajectory would be Edit war => WP:AN3 => WP:RPP => WP:AIAV => WP:ARBCOM. I have seen more then a few editors ending up being temporarily blocked or sanctioned (Most times a ban on editing specific articles) because of edit warring. Granted, those cases were much more extensive and vandalistic then this simple disagreement, but WP:NPOV is still one of the core policies on wikipedia. Blatantly breaking that policy continuously or getting in edit wars often is literally direction:trouble :). Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule[edit]

Given your insistence on reversion rather than compromise on War in South Ossetia (2008), you ought to be aware of the three-revert rule here on Wikipedia. Please try to work with other editors rather than simply reversing changes you don't like. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Thanks! --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was i blocked??[edit]

I have stoped reverting? Please answer. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cmmon thats shittalking. I dont even know M.V.E.i. You'll have to bring a prove. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chrystal Blue Moon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Oh cmmon thats shittalking. I dont even know M.V.E.i. You'll have to bring a prove.

Decline reason:

Checkuser confirmed sockpuppet. — PeterSymonds (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.