User talk:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Longhair\^talk 05:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Proper use of "minor" edits

Please only use minor (m) edits when you are only correcting a minor spelling or grammaticial error in a Wikipedia article which does not change, reduce, or expand the meaning, context, or voice of an article. In recent edits (see: Ochota_massacre) you have made substantial additions to articles and flagged the edits as "minor." This is incorrect. Please see: Help:Minor edit. Pollenberg (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Zivia Lubetkin

Welcome aboard, Cap'n! I appreciate your pitching in with clean-up edits on the Zivia Lubetkin page. You're welcome to raid my User page for formatting ideas if you like, and if there's any help I can offer, feel free to ask. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Physician who died in Nazi concentration camps

Hi there, you'll need to post a Speedy-CFR notice at Category:Physician who died in Nazi concentration camps following the directions at the Speedy Renaming page. Nothing can happen until it's properly tagged. Cheers, Cgingold (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good articles

I think your should study Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles and think what else could be improved. As soon as you decide that everything is O'K, we can go ahead and try the nomination. Both articles look too big, and maybe some sub-articles could be created, although I am not quite sure. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time for that. Good job with Moscow theater hostage crisis! Biophys (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

International response to the Beslan hostage crisis

A tag has been placed on International response to the Beslan hostage crisis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.) 20:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Beslan school hostage crisis. Thank you. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 20:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to be overly sarcastic

This one was unneeded, the whole drama could be avoided if you would discuss substance of your changes instead. Please re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, and Alex's polite request above: please be aware that the civility policy is a non-negotiable requirement. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could tone down your language in discussions. -- The Anome (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Generalplan Ost. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Aheadnovel55 (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a follow up to this. You were referred to WP:AN3, and should be aware. I have closed the request because you were warned after your fourth edit. However, you did violate the policy. Please be more careful in the future and use the article's talk page to try to reach a consensus rather than engaging in edit warring. Remember, that you can be blocked for edit warring even without a technical 3RR violation. --Selket ^Talk 18:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Relax a little. See this link from here. Biophys (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Zamość Uprising and cleanup

Could you explain on talk of that article what needs to be "cleaned up"? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you mean such minor MoS issues, I admit I am not that familiar with them. I'd appreciate it if you could clean up the article from such issues - it is unlikely anyone else will do it soon. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:My Lai Massacre

Hi - I'm not sure why you blanked the contents of this category page, since you didn't leave an edit summary. I'll assume it was a mistake, but please be more careful in future. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 02:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved to main. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't sufficient to categorize only the main article. Nearly all categories have at least one parent category, and there's no reason why this one should be different. Please revert your deletion. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You are removing categories, for example in two last edits. Can you please explain what you are doing? Thanks.Biophys (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean this for example. It seems that all parent cats were good.Biophys (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Movin' to the maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain articles. Nothing's lost. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course main article Beslan_school_hostage_crisis was properly categorized as belonging to Category:Beslan_school_hostage_crisis. But the Category:Beslan_school_hostage_crisis is a sub-category of several other categories, and you have deleted all parent categories. Could you please have a good rest? Very best wishes,Biophys (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Biophys. Until you understand the difference between a category structure and mentions of a subject in an article, I strongly suggest you stop editing categories, otherwise further controversial edits may be seen as deliberate disruption. You have been told often enough now that you should not be doing what you are doing. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 21:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Category:My Lai Massacre

This is a friendly warning. If you revert again you can be blocked. Please see WP:3RR.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Category:My Lai Massacre. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you look at...

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish culture during World War II? I'd appreciate your comments, and help with copyediting the article. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sheena Fujibayashi

Is there any particular reason for which you resurrected the Sheena Fujibayashi article? The decision to merge it with the List of characters in Tales of Symphonia article was almost unanimous. The current consensus among Wiki editors is that it should remain merged. Unless you can convince us otherwise, the article will be reverted to its merged state. Thanks. Patrician Vetinari (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Merging pages

When you are merging one page into another, you should not tag the page for deletion nor blank the page. The proper procedure is to redirect the page. --- RockMFR 21:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Chechen people

Thanks for reverting all that guy's additions. It seems the best solution in the circumstances. I checked out one of his references (in Russian) and, as far as I can tell, it says the exact opposite of what he claims in the material he added. Judging by his user page, we're dealing with WP:SOAPBOX here. Oh, and he's got a nerve asking for a cite for material which is clearly referenced at the end of the paragraph to a reliable, published source. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

First can you please not attack me, second of all, I've spent an hour writing based on several literature for example of the wartime insurgency in Chechnya, the Russo-Chechen conflict of titular nationlities of the ChIASSR, and the ethnic cleansing of the 300,000 non-Chechen population in the early 1990s by Chechens. All of this was refrenced. Instead of pointing out complete issues you have reverted everything without an entry into the talk page if and if this happens one more time, this goes straight to the WP:AN/I, there is a difference between vandalous and sourced additions. --Kuban Cossack 10:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I have acted in good faith resisted the urge to revert, yet you are still not participating in the talk page discussion, even though I've saved you the effort of starting the section, on how to fix the article's history part that is presently written only from one source (effectively copypasted) --Kuban Cossack 10:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To Captain Obvious: I imagine you and I are the "two arrogant editors" referred to here:[1]. Just a heads-up.--Folantin (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Queries

Could you explain why you removed the small amount of sourced material I added? Also, where does the claim "they refer to themselves as Nokhchii meaning 'Noah's people'" come from? It's certainly not in Jaimoukha. It sounds like folk etymology. In fact, it seems to be from a fringe source, Khasan Baksayev, of the Research Centre of the Nokhchii Latt Islam movement, who claimed Chechen had been spoken by Adam and Noah [2] --Folantin (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of "common knowledge". Last month Kadyrov even launched a "Noah's Ark" festival in Chechnya, guess why. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but according to the source I gave it is only folk etymology (and pretty recent folk etymology at that). So we shouldn't have it as a "fact". --Folantin (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

But seriously, Noh is "Nox" in Chechen. This what it means. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Such coincidences are amazingly common between languages (especially as far as monosyllables are concerned). The source I quoted above says that the etymology of Nokhchi disputed "before the war" "but no one traced it to the Biblical patriarch Noah" until Baksayev came along. --Folantin (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nokchii / Noah

---

As the descendents of Noah dispersed, the language and religious traditions gradually shifted. A number of societies trace their ancestry back to the descendents of Noah. Magog, a grandson of Noah, is regarded by present-day Chechens to be the ancestor of one of the Black Sea tribes that split after the Black Sea flood, with some moving north of the Black Sea, and others settling in the area north of the Caspian Sea. [3]

On another occasion, on a visit to France, Dudayev amazed his hosts with a new version of the story of Noah’s Ark, in which the Ark landed in the mountains of Chechnya and Noah and his family were the direct ancestors of the Vainakhs. Mankind, therefore, owed its salvation from the Flood to the Chechens. “I can’t say how much he believed it himself, but he spoke with the conviction of a man who knows mysteries that are concealed from others,” Abubakarov says (1998: 17).(Chechnya: Life in a War-Torn Society: Door Valeriĭ Aleksandrovich Tishkov)

This might help. - Pieter_v (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Russians, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll so get blocked for this

Stop this revert war. Before jumping on the Russians Contribution To Humanity section, go delete it in English people who have a section under the same name, and Ashkenazi Jews who have an achievments sections. In other words, you the clame "Poles dont have it" doesn't work here. Revert waring is a reason to block, as you can see people oppose to you doing it, which means that you dont have any right to do it. Wikipedia works on agreement, and it's agreed this section stayes. Log in, log out (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

English people don't have this too. It was a really silly lie, you know? Just a click away. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So they deleted it. Ashkenazi Jews still have an achievments one. And you still cant decide on your own to delete a whole section only because you dont like it. I checked it and those people existed, and realy did what they did. It's referenced. It will be nice if every nation would have this section. Anyway. delete it? You wont, belive me. Change the name to Achievments? Start a discussion. Log in, log out (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Since nobody has bothered to inform you of this (as they should have done), just a note to tell you you are now featuring on WP:ANI [4]. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning number two

You wrote on the Talk:Russians your own political views, which dont have enything to do with the article. Wikipedia is not a forum, and i you want to experiment go to the sandbox. Thank you. Log in, log out (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that "Log in, log out" was banned as a sock of a banned user. So, you can delete all his comments on your talk page if you wish.Biophys (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning!

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Battle of Okinawa, you will be blocked from editing. Also note that edit summaries such as this are not enough, and that writing WTF can be considered impolite.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 21:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is: 1. half off-topic (POWs in the section about civilians)

2. the rest is anecdotal-style white-wash of the Japanese suicide order at the time there is a huge scandal in Japan (see the article). Note that it is pro-Imperial-military lobby losing the Japanese courts, and they don't even bring this "we were right, the barbarians were raping and torturing left and right so we just out our people out of misery" argument. The bulk of casualties is because the Japanese military starved civilians, used them as human shields, killed them outright, and told them to kill themselves.

The Americans were good guys here and in general they did spare the population as much as they could (just like they did not run a rampage in Japan, Imperial Army-style, after Japan surrendered). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the points you're making, but you are doing yourself no favours by swearing in the discussions on the article's talk page - this is uncivil behaviour, and not needed. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Three revert warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Okinawa. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 h in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three revert rule on Battle of Okinawa as reported on WP:AN3. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.  Sandstein  22:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Battle of Okinawa article

Could you please use edit summaries to explain the changes you're making? Given that the content of this article is currently under discussion, it is important that other editors be able to easily track what's changed. Thanks, Nick Dowling (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as we're asking, how about making one or two larger edits with all your changes included as opposed to making a flurry of edits that swamp the edit history? Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Editions of Dungeons & Dragons

I removed the Cleanup tag for the time being, simply because there wasn't any indication of what you think needs work. Feel free to reinstate it but please add some more specific tags in the article or start a discussion on the Talk page. Thanks! Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit to Defiance

Just wondering why you removed the World War II films category from the Defiance (2008 film) page. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Holocaust_films --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't see the reason there. Just a link. Could you explain further? Are you saying that the film, if included in the Holocaust category, should not be included in the WW2 cat as well? --Stuthomas4 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Would you care to proffer an explanation? --Stuthomas4 (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Lurk moar. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Clever insult but that doesn't explain the revert. No offense but I see that on previous occasions you've made other sarcastic remarks and failed to explain edits. Looking at your edit history it seems you're a well informed contributor but failing to be collaborative doesn't help the community. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Holocaust films is a subcat of Cat:WWII films. WP:CAT states that an article should not simultaneously be in a cat and its parent cat. So Captain Obvious is right on this one. Although it would have been better for him to explain that rather than what he did. - Revolving Bugbear 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem?

What part of Major changes (addition/removal of sections) must be proposed here first as a courtesy to other editors. did you not understand when doing this including the removal of POV tags which I have placed with Papa's conscent.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that irregardless of what the admin said you decide how the article is run. See WP:OWN. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, owned. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops

I just rolled back a couple of your comments at Talk:Chechen people by mistake. I've put them back straight away - sorry! Papa November (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Stage sections for SC characters

They have no bearing on the characters and violate WP:GAMEGUIDE. They're just long winded descriptions of stages that the characters appeared in and that's it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh noes. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"except this was badly written and copied from somewhere" - If you haven't noticed, they're verbatim text bits from the games for the most part. And how does it help anyone to understand a character to know where they happened to randomly fight in some certain game and the layout of said area? Take it up with the video game project if you want proof, the stage descriptions were already mentioned to be unnecessary back when the Yoshimitsus were merged.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary language

The type of language used in this edit summary rarely calms the situation down. As an uninvolved editor who will refrain from taking sides on the merits (though I do agree with you about the dispute tag you chose to add), I ask you politely to consider dialing the language down a notch, no matter the situ. BusterD (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --FilmFan69 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know

High, I just came here to say that I removed your recent edit from the Battle of Thermopylae. Firstly, both armies lost 1/4 of their troops, and state your reasons with references, if you have any. Finally, another user had put Pyrrhic a long time ago, most users agreed it was wrong, so don't. Feel free to comment me anytime, anyways, thanks for understanding.--Ariobarza (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Nangar Khel, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No U. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You should provide a reason for removing the material which seems to be cited properly. --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tag on Stormfront (website)

Explain please. Skomorokh 15:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2008 Xinjiang attack. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Beslan

You do know that you can renominate it if you really want someone else to look at it? naerii 12:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Abadan

I see you’ve changed the figures in the infobox here; do you have a source for them?
I know the article has no references, but I don’t know that your unsubstantiated figures are any better than the unsubstantiated figures that were already there.
Can you say where they came from? Otherwise it’d be better to go back to the original. I’ve left a note on the talk page; do you want to reply there?
Xyl 54 (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you dense or something? 20,000 + 4,500 ("4.500") = 24,500. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have shown a continuing pattern of rude remarks and repeated violations of WP:CIV Please try to show some etiquette.--FilmFan69 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello, Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmFan69 (talk • contribs)

Keep WP:3RR in mind.

I notice that the article War in South Ossetia (2008) is currently escalating into an edit war. Keep in mind that we have a rule that forbids reverting other editors more then three times. Also, please discuss the issue on the talk page of the article, or contact the other editor in question.

As an independent observer, i would suggest that a bit of both edits are kept. The killed people on the Russian side are indeed referred to as 'Peacekeepers', not only in the sources but also in the rest of the article. At the same time, i would say "Firing between the countries. Ossetian previously stated demand of independence. Georgian government wanting to completely kill the Ossetian autonomy." should not be included in the article, as this is indeed major PoV. Just one of the possible suggestions, but at least call of the reveert war. One war is enough :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The POV problem

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hey, guys, get out of here. Thi is not war room. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, i just stoped by to say "hi". So, Hi. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Captain Obvious :). I tend to synchronize conversations from my own talk page with the talk pages of people involved. While you are not technically discussing, it was about a subject that regarded you Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the War in South Ossetia (2008)

Hi, I noticed your very active in the named article so I approach you for help. I have provided information regarding the bombing of Vaziani which was accomplished by fighters taking off from the Russian military base in Armenia (102nd Military Base) I provided a objective source but some members keep removing it and give no reason. Could you perhaps keep an eye on this for me? As I have to go now. Many thanks Baku87 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm leaving too. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please try to use better edit summaries. I thought this edit was questionable, as you removed what I thought was relevant info with no summary. Superm401 - Talk 08:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Be careful. In this edit you mixed up 2007 and 2008 events. Superm401 - Talk 09:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

very long

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.--Oneiros (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR violation

Please stop violating 3RR rule, you've reverted 8 (!) times at this moment. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Scroll down the article. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And what? All the information in infobox is in article. Let's remove the box! --Alexander Widefield (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at 2008 South Ossetia War. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

.

1998 Abkhazia

Next time leave an edit summary for important edits. Your removal of sourced and aesthetically positive content was reverted.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

oh, I see you have a history of such things. No problem, then, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Your username

Is the best damn thng on wikipedia - seriously. Viridae^Talk 04:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Edit summaries are not optional. You have just made at least 7 edits to 2008 South Ossetia war without an edit sumamry. That is a major hassle to editors trying to review changes. You've been warned before about this. Please stop, or you'll be blocked. Superm401 - Talk 05:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actualy edit summaries are optional. It is polite to use them when makign substantial changes however. Viridae^Talk 05:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not optional for major changes. See Wikipedia:Edit summaries. The guideline is "Always fill in the summary field." (it doesn't even distinguish between major and minor). Superm401 - Talk 05:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No they are optional - that is a reccomendation in a help file, not a policy. Viridae^Talk 07:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah? And WHO WAS RIGHT regarding infobox (right above)? I know what I'm doing. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be useful for you to include edit summaries when making large changes, for example here [5]. Thanks. 92.12.158.246 (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits

Please explain why you reverted my well-sourced edits. Naurmacil (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What edits? Please re-install if correct. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

See the talk page of the article. Under section "Rewrote lead". Let's discuss the edits there. Thanks. Naurmacil (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

From Sherlock

Could you please explain why did you deface the article on Battle_of_Tskhinvali? What did I put in there to make you do so? Why are you blocking me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.234.21.63 (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tskhinvali

What is your problem? Stop destroying the article Battle of Tskhinvali. You may not like the facts but there they are. And your complaints about the genocide section are unfounded, do you think the Russians would lie about something like that. What? Did 2,000 people just vanish like that overnight? (Top Gun)

It's NOT FACTS, it's UNCONFIRMED PROPAGANDA TALES. Where do you have the source for "2,000 people", "vanishing overnight" or not? HRW? UN? Oh, I know - war propaganda. Sorry, no bonus. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You are obviously pro-Georgian, and there is no place for editors that cann't put their own point of view aside. I am neither for the Russians or the Georgians. I am looking on the situation as a third party and you should stop this or I will be forced to report you to a Wikipedia administrator. Again these are facts not propaganda, every mayor TV station is reporting that 2,000 people have been killed and you don't belive it? Something is very wrong with you.(Top Gun)

You can not edit Wikipedia in this manner just removing large sections of an article that has been covered with citations and references. At least you should discuss it first with other editors before making such large edits to an article, which you have not, and by the looks of it nobody supports your claims of propaganda.(Top Gun)

"The Georgian snipers keep firing at vehicles transporting the wounded to the hospitals of South Ossetia", said Irina Glagoleva, a spokeswoman for the South Ossetia government.

Not propaganda?

"The women and children in Tskhinvali suffer from thirst. The city has not had any access to water, gas, electricity for 3 days. The cell phones are losing power. The Georgian snipers shoot anyone who tries to get out into the street", reports the OSInform News Agency.[29] (offical separatist agency)

Not propaganda?

The South Ossetia Secretary of State Konstantin Kochiyev told the REGNUM News Agency, "The situation in the Republic of South Ossetia has changed to a catastrophe during the past two days. The city of Tskhinvali no longer exists. The number of dead is uncountable, there seem to be thousands. How many more have been tortured to death by the Georgian aggressors is hard to imagine. This cannot be forgiven. The atrocities of the Georgian troops are beyond measure. South Ossetia will never forgive what has happened to our people. There are many dead bodies of Georgian soldiers and broken vehicles both on the outskirts of Tskhinvali and near its center. Today and last night, the Ossetian fighters continued defending the territory, but the enemy doesn't stop. Our forces are running out. We're waiting for Russia to support. It's not even about hours, it's about minutes."'[citation needed]

Not propaganda?

The Central Committee of Information and Press of South Ossetia reported on August 10 that eight small towns (or villages) in South Ossetia were leveled and their defenders massacred. As Ilona Dzhoyeva, a 19-year-old student and a resident of the village of Dmenes, said, "The Georgian aircraft bombed the houses of civilians, and then the soldiers came in shooting elders, women and children point-blank... The running people were shot on sight, the wounded were finished off by shots in the head. Only a few of us managed to escape from our village... We got to the position of the Russian peacekeepers and they brought us to safety... "[28]

Not propaganda?

During the meeting with Russia' Prime Minister Vladimir Putin the South Ossetian refugees reported that "in the Znaur region, the Georgians burned up a few young women in their home... We've seen a Georgian tank run over an old lady running away with two children... We've seen a one-and-a-half-year-old baby knived by a Georgian soldier" [27]

Not propaganda?

The South Ossetian spokesmen repeatedly accused the Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili of genocide,[26] whereas eyewitnesses and survivors speaking on Russian TV channels referred to the event as "a massacre, not a military operation".

Not propaganda?

What you call propaganda, then? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda or not both sides stories have to be put into the article not just the story of one side. You are trying to put in the story of the Georgians only and cover up that the city has been destroyed.(Top Gun)

Propaganda PERIOD and what? Where am I "trying to put in the story of the Georgians only and cover up that the city has been destroyed"? Point it exactly. It's here. If you fail to do this, you are a dirty liar. Deal? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

One clarification: "Some 60 civilians were reportedly killed in the bombing when several apartment blocks were hit." were not added by me (see the previous version) and is not in the source article. I'd remove this now. Actually, my original (worderd by me) version is here and the rest was not my input except expanding links to source and date. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I noted you on yourt talk page. Now I give you one day to recall your "cover up" claims, or you're offically a little silly dirty liar. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Tskhinvali. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. __meco (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you send this to Top Gun, too? Especially since I just said I stopped? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was sent to Top Gun. Check his talk page. 70.131.218.57 (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Shane

As the anonymous contributor rightly informs you, I placed the same cautionary message on the talk page of the other party. Anyway, This is not to say that you have crossed the line, merely to remind you that you're standing on it. __meco (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad language

Please refrain from insulting other editors. That is not allowed on Wikipedia. Thank you. (Top Gun)

Listen up

Ok listen up, I made a lot of concessions to please you but not this. The shelling of the barracks was a pivotal moment when the Russians decided to attack, and this was one of the main causes of the attack on Georgia and shouldn't be mentioned in the casualties section but in the battle section of the article and in a chronological order.(Top Gun)

At this time the Russian Ministry of Defence also reported that at least 10 Russian soldiers were killed and 30 were wounded in the initial Georgian shelling of the Russian peacekeeping force base at Tskhinvali;, this number was later revised to 13 killed and 70 wounded.

If you insist, I'll move it up. Actually I don't care. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

Please see the report or diff for these reverts [6][7],[8][9][10][11][12][13]. 92.8.254.213 (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. seicer | talk | contribs 01:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's awesome. I was blocked, but the vandal who was reverting me to the false information (see also) was not. Great. Congratulations.

Fuck this shit, I'm outta here. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Top Gun - can you point me to the diff where there was copyrighted material added by him? He was previously blocked for that and unblocked with an understanding that he was not to do it again - if he has done so I will indef him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridae (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the block of a week was harsh, as you were rightly reverting some terrible edits. I have asked Seicer to consider reducing its length (not to unblock you entirely, as edit warring is unacceptable). I was *this* close to indefinitely blocking Top Gun for knowingly misrepresenting sources, over and over again to push his POV, before Viridae stepped in and blocked him for three days. Neıl ☄ 08:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Neil - feel free to extend the block and see my thread on ANI. Viridae^Talk 08:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've cut your block down to two hours. Sorry about all this...please keep helping. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support cutting the block (just in case) Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be judging other users, especially since I was recently blocked and unblocked for a slight offense over 3RR, but I've found it incredibly difficult to collaborate with this user here when editing the 2008 South Ossetia article. The user's purpose on Wikipedia seems to be inserting a certain anti-Russian POV (and calling everything he disagrees with "Russian propaganda"[14][15][16]) in related articles, disregarding some of the most fundamental procedures and edit warring, blanking pages to remove critical, reliable information which runs contrary to his point of view[17], gaming the system to push his POV, and acting in an incredibly hostile fashion[18][19][20][21] to any user who does not agree with him. Again, this is not an accusation or a judgment on the user, but a personal opinion. In my opinion and no doubt the opinions of many here in the talk pages 1 and 2 as you can see, the user has not been constructive at all, so I'm surprised the admins reduced his block for a serious, repeated offense. Nonetheless, my best wishes to the user and I hope he refrains from making more unnecessary attacks in his edits and edit summaries. Naurmacil (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

DONT LEAVE MAN!

Don't leave, your hilarious!--EZ1234 (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Captain, I did what I could at 3RR noticeboard. But I can not spend too much time here and have to run. Perhaps you do need a good rest after yesterday. Best wishes,Biophys (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not leave, we need NPOV and neutral users like you to counter Russian POV pushing and agenda on Wiki. Thanks a lot for your tireless work and dedication to encyclopedic standards and compliance with NPOV guidelines Iberieli (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I second that. I'm not a very active contributor -- I can hardly speak for the whole of Wikipedia -- but I'm really impressed by your efforts in keeping the articles on the war under control. Passions in Russia are running so high that Internet crime is a popular cause over there [22] -- please, don't give up. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The information about military budget of Georgia reported by Georgian sources was deleted from article

There was no discussion about it, only opinion that it's POW, because we need information about percantage of Russian military budget to Russian GDP. But it doesn't mean that we must delete sources and information: it means we need information about Russia.

Such information indicate who planned the war costs. We knowthat the groth of Geprgian military budget was from 0,5 % GDP (2005) up to 6 % GDP (2008). Why is it POW? Because it's indicate real planns of "small peacefull young democrasy" wich under pressure of "coward Red Bear"??? --195.98.173.10 (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The words you're looking for are POV and democracy. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC) My IP 195.98.173.10 Let's add section in Bacground like "Military Budgets of sides" where we must compare financial preparation of Russia, Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia? I suppose that all sides made the War, and a lot of "helpers" prepared the WAR (USA and Israel instructors and weapon on Georgian side; Russian instructors and weapon on Ossetian and Abkhazian side. All of us are guilty). But show us (I'm Russian) the sign of neutrality - let's describe it in the article. Sorry for spelling, grammar and punctuation. --Niggle (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Captain. You didn't answer. Or you are interested in information which show only one Point Of View ?

Jesus, I ONLY HELPED YOU WITH YOUR ENGLISH. I DON'T CARE. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for help. I know that my English needs be improved. But it's enough to understand my idea. Do you agree? --Niggle (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of media bias

Obviously both Russian and Georgian media are biased, there is no point including claims to that effect, the question is whether outside media is biased. It is stupid, you have taken out the information that says outside media is biased and put in information that says Russian media, which is obviously biased as is Georgian media, is biased - stupid. And how is the guy at antiwar.com a "conspiracy theorist". With regards to the "blogger" - it is not as if he is just some civilian blogger, he works for a respectable newspaper.--Miyokan (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

He wrote book The Terror Enigma: 9/11 And the Israeli Connection. In short, he's of the JEWS DID WTC crowd, except this is an Internet runnig joke and this guy is dead serious. The "respectable newspaper" is in the first line to "get biased". (Newest article.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have sources describing him as a conspiracy theorist? First in line to "get biased" - what? That article is not discussing anything about media bias.--Miyokan (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22The+Terror+Enigma%3A+9%2F11+And+the+Israeli+Connection%22+onspiracy&btnG=Google+Search --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well? So you just made that "conspiracy theorist" thing up, all you gave was a generic google search which doesn't show anything. Only 141 results, none of them linking to anything significant. Also, he ran as the Republican party candidate in California's 8th district in the 1996 U.S. congressional elections, more credentials.--Miyokan (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You do agree that there is no point including information about Russian or Georgian media bias, because that is just a given, right? That section should be discussing claims of outside media being biased.--Miyokan (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

conspiracy theorist

there are too many conspiracy theorists..i guess saakashville's statements after wantonly invading the breakaway province qualifies on that count...read shevarnnadze's comment on the present president miscalculating and doing a grave mistake in attacking defenseless s. ossetia...(pay back time i guess for him!!)...so, should i retain those conspiracy theories too or remove?? ...as american/ georgian or russian reponse will be at opposite ends.. pls say as a wikipedian...Cityvalyu (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian soldiers robbing bank and stealing computers in Gori-video from security cameras

[23]

Would add it, but I will likely be removed by users supporting Russia.

--Molobo (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC team attacked by Russian plane

[24]

Another demonstration of "cease-fire" --Molobo (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please post on the war's talk page, not mine. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comments in the discussion about the 2008 South Ossetia war

While I think we happen to agree about the underlying political issues, I have to say some of your contributions to the discussion have not been constructive and occasionally border on personal attacks. They certain do not assume good faith. For instance, the sarcasm in the Infobox section was indeed sarcasm about the American education system -- something which was wholly and completely irrelvant, and unproductive, to the conversation about the infobox. I don't think I've ever addressed a comment to you that was discourteous or unconstructive. I'd appreciate the same. If we can both do that, then I think we can achieve our mutual goal of improving the article, making sure its unbiased, and accurately summarizes the issues within the conflict. Thanks. croll (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain Obvious needs to stay

Great work on the article! Ostap 21:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, take it easy - not only you're apparently wasting nerve tissue on what's supposed to be a hobby, but you're also starting to see evil Russian lies and propaganda practically everywhere. And while being paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you, the sweeping assumption of bad faith by default is probably only going to cost you more nerve tissue in the future. --Illythr (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey... good job!

I don't know if you use torrents.. But, you may want to check out "The Russian invasion of Georgia". Keep it up.71.158.215.203 (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

USA-Georgia-Russia

Hello, Captain. Sorry for answering back late. Washington has given a big amount of military aid to Georgia. Here is a link [25]. One of the officials even noticed that the US is a third side of the conflict alongside with Georgia and Russia. Russian troops seized American tanks and wearpons in South Ossetia and in Gori, Georgia. I'm not taking into account military trainers from the US that helped Georgian army. Taamu (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Man, RE S.O. conflict.

You do realize that the other side is just the same? In the consumer society ideals are no more, it's all about business, profits and money. There's no Russian Imperialists or US Democrats, there's Russian businessmen and US businessmen, it's a war where both sides are worse than fags, because they make money on it(or somehow profit from it in other ways), and in the end only simple people suffer from all this crap. Can you explain to me, please, how can you pick sides in such a situation and then call yourself unbiased, honest person? I just cannot comprehend your behavior. Also don't bother calling me cynical, I know I am. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Siding with the underdog and with those suffering more. Long-time hate for the Russian gvt, too. Actual article edit as close to reality as possible, though; I think there's no point in lying or hiding anything. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Err, HOW do you know who is suffering more? Georgians or South Ossetians? By trusting one of the MassMediaive BS Generators? Good luck with that. And does it really matter THAT much what side gets more KIAs of civilians? I don't have any love for Russian gov. as well, but I don't have any for US gov. either. Especially for providing Georgians and South Ossetians(for Russia respectively) weps for that conflict. Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Iraq, Georgia... Notice a trend there? 68.151.34.161 (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note

That you're pissing me off. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcatzilla (talk • contribs) 03:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'll try my best in pissing you even more :) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring of Russian Apartment Bombings page

We are currently discussing this. Perhaps you would like to join us, as you have suggested an interest before. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your expertise would help a lot.Biophys (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war

Thanks for your invaluable contributions to this and related articles.--Kober^Talk 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change community ban into community restrictions

I proposed on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Productive_socks to change the ban into the community restrictions. Please contribute Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do we want to reward banned editors for socking and continued disruption? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do we want to play such smartasses and talk about "continued disruption" when we can't give any example of "disruption" because of a complete lack of such thing, ever? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is probably all my fault. Yesterday, I commented in Arbcomm case making a link to Alaexis talk page. Now he suddenly comes to my talk page and claims that you are a sock of HanzoHattory. Why? Apparently, because I commented in your favor at several talk pages. Wikipedia is a virtual hell. Whoever you are, I wish you the best, and thank you for your edits and improvements of many WP articles.Biophys (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain this: [26] — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I commented at WP:ANI.Biophys (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)