User talk:Speaking fish
Speedy deletion of Amanda Kokoeva
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Amanda Kokoeva requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. RayAYang (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Notable (Amanda Kokoeva)
[edit]Ah. Amanda Kokoeva is "not noteworthy enough". Right,then. Let me tell you something about "noteworthy"...And BELIEVE ME, I'm an expert on the subject! Let me introduce myself: I'm a German citizen. My grandfather had the doubtful honor of spending some time in a concentration-camp for political prisoners. My Father had the doubtful honor to spend some time as a soldier in the German navy- the Kriegsmarine. It cost him a mere five years of his life (not to mention that it nearly cost him his life), plus another ten or so years to get over the memories. My mother had the doubtful honor of having to dodge the bullets of an allied warplane when she was twelve years old, when the train she was travelling on was strafed. Why am I telling you all that? Because there is a hidden meaning. What I just described is PRECISELY what happens when you live in a state were freedom of speech is being trampled underfoot. Or didn't you know that? Ring a bell, perhaps? Amanda Kokoeva was doing precisely that: She used her GODGIVEN right to speak freely: NOT some shit written on a piece of paper, but a right we all are BORN with. The result was that the presenter at FOX (or whatever you call that shit which describes itself as a 'media-outlet') suddenly discovered that he needed to go to an ad-break. After that, Amanda got 60 seconds to finish. THAT, MY DEAR OH-SO-FREE-AND-DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS, HAS *VERY* LITTLE TO DO WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH- CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED OR FUCKING OTHERWISE: THAT IS WHAT WE CALL IN GERMANY "FASCISM".
Did I sound a wee bit upset here? OH- my... Anyways.
- That* is what makes Amanda Kokoeva highly significant.
She marks the day when the right to freedom of speech was trampled underfoot in public, in front of everyone, on a TV-screen...And that in the very motherland of democracy. Important enough for you, dimwits???
And now...Be so good as to restore that article to its former condition, will ye? Because I frankly *hate* getting my feet wet; I'd be VERY upset if I would have to swim all the way over there just to smoke you in my pipe... PS: I'm going to paste this discussion-page all over the fucking internet. What a great picture: The supposed repository of human knowledge- nothing but a cheap heap of worthless trivia...86.41.198.91 (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I can just agree, it is really embarrassing, how political censorship is taken place here !!! Who decides, what people have to know and what not ? Was it the idea of Wikipedia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.152.207.187 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Amanda Kokoeva deleted
[edit]Unfortunately, arguments of 86.41.198.91 didn't work. User:Nancy just deleted the Amanda Kokoeva article, saying the the "notability" was not proven. ...Everybody, any idea if I can post an article not about her but about that interview? Will that pass the "notability" criteria? Thanks! Speaking fish 15:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
===Perhaps the following may put things a bit into perspective: The following is an interview in German: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,571853,00.html A translation of that article into English can be found here (under 'comments'): http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/aug/13/livegeorgiaconflict In addition to this, there is this: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-2-2004-51178.asp (Scroll to last paragraph of article)
What all that means is this: 1)There was a ceasefire-agreement in place in South-Ossetia since the early 1990s.
2)There was an internationally recognised ceasefire line in place.
3)There was a so-called 'stable de-facto regime' in place. An entity like that is subject to international law: It is protected from the use of military force the same way a regular state is.
4)There exists a defense-pact between the United States and Georgia, at least since 2004.
5)The Georgians, therefore, were in breach of that ceasefire-agreement the moment they crossed the ceasefire-line. They occupied the provincial capital, Tskhinvali; in doing so, they effectively tried to change the existing status quo of that ceasefire-agreement by force. That constitutes an act of agression.
6)Under those circumstances, the Russians were fully entitled to carry out military operations (even though they are not entitled to maintain outposts outside of that ceasefire-line).
7)The Russians, for political reasons, did not refer to these facts when justifying their own reaction to the Georgian intervention; instead they chose to refer to the Russian passports held by many South-Ossetians in order to prevent any up-grading of the South-Ossetian regime. That however does not change the facts.
8)It has to be assumed that the politicians in the west knew about these facts. Despite that, there has been a ferocious media-campaign which has resulted in some individuals actually believing that those killed in South-Ossetia were killed by Russian troops. Russia was (and still is) portrayed as the agressor in this conflict. The simple reality is- the Russians were within their rights.
9)The defense-agreement between the US and Georgia has a highly poignant meaning. A state which signs an agreement like that with a nuclear power does not do any 'extra-tours': If Saakashvili could get out of his cage and bite people, then only because someone let him out.
10)The Russians must be assumed to be also fully aware of these facts. They have by now recognised South-Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states: They don't loose anything by doing so now. It would be extremely unlikely that any international recognition would follow; the North-Ossetians therefore will not make any demands of their own. In the meantime, the Russians will interpret the western reaction to this entire affair as 'hostile'; they will react accordingly.
11)There are still attempts to push through a Georgian membership of NATO. Considering the facts described above, this would be an extremely dangerous move. He may get out of his cage again.
When seen in this context, the way in which the media dealt with people like Amanda Kokoeva or Joe Mestas may take on a somewhat different meaning. 213.94.147.151 (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussion with administrator about article's deletion
[edit]A friendly and to-the-point discussion with the administrator who marked the article for deletion (please do not anger him with accusation of censorship!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RayAYang#Why_article_about_Amanda_Kokoeva_was_deleted_by_you_.3F
Deleted article's original text
[edit]Anyways, her's the text of that deleted article:
Amanda Kokoeva | |
|---|---|
| Born | 1996 (age 27–28) |
| Website | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ |
Amanda Kokoeva is an American citizen living in Bay Area. She became known as "The 12 Year Old Girl That Tells the Truth about Georgia" after her live interview with Fox News on August 13, 2008. Amanda was caught in the city of Tskhinvali, capital of South Ossetia, on August 8, 2008 during Georgian assault on the city. After a couple of questions asked by the by Fox News host about her experiences in Tskhinvali, Amanda made a statement:
Before I say anything else, I just want to say that I was running from Georgian troops bombing our city, not Russian troops. I want to say "Thank you" to Russian troops for helping us out.
The Fox News host seemed surprised and shocked by the statement. Following that, Amanda's aunt, Laura Tedeeva-Korewiski, made another statement (original wording, non-native English speaker):
Main thing I want to say on the television... I want you to know to whom to blame of in this conflict. And that is Mr. Saakashvili who started this war, and Mr. Saakashvili who is aggressor. ...and who ...and who ...two days, my people, Ossetian people were killed and bombed, and two thousand people were killed in one day
The host cut Amanda and her aunt off in the middle of their account, citing a scheduled commercial break as a reason. After the commercial break, the host returned to them for 30 seconds, after which the interview was cut off.
Video of the interview
[edit]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) 03:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
[edit]Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)