User talk:UA Victory/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:UA Victory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Welcome
|
Abkhazia
Hi! Thank you for your edits of Abkhazia article, it's really great that you have added all those missing sources. FYI, I have removed one of your statements, the rationale is in the edit comment. If you disagree let's discuss this issue at the Abkhazia talk page. Best regards, Alæxis¿question? 08:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Tskhinvali may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- that while some neighborhoods were intact, "there were patches of terrible destruction".<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/aug/13/georgia.russia3 | location=London | deadurl=
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Occupation of Gori may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- File:Tbilisi-2008-08-14.jpg|Georgian conscripts in [[Tbilisi]] after retreating from Gori]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thanks very much for your edits to Russo-Georgian war. They've greatly improved the article so far, and I hope to see more. RGloucester — ☎ 19:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC) |
Notice
I am notifying your about the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Massive_edit_-_propaganda_us --Wrant (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
UA Victory, you are invited to the Teahouse
|
Hi UA Victory! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Massive edit - propaganda use. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 16:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Tskhinvali may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- 2008/08/12/russiageorgia-investigate-civilian-deaths Russia/Georgia: Investigate Civilian Deaths], [[Human Rights Watch]], 14 August 2008</ref>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Tskhinvali may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- getresource.axd?AssetID=20268&type=full&servicetype=Attachment |archivedate=2008-10-21}}{{dead link|date=March 2014}}</ref><ref name=spiegel1>[http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,
- War |date=2008-08-10} |accessdate=2014-04-09 |work=The New York Times |first=Anne |last=Barnard}}</ref> Russia claimed to have responded to an attack on the peacekeepers base and in defense of
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Russo-Georgian war
Hello,
I think my changes were correct.
for example:BTR-70,BTR-80 and BMP1/2 are used by the GAF and some of the information in the table are also either incorrect or without a source.
Most of the sources a I have are not in English or not on internet(Newspaper articles for example)
I kindly ask you to carefully look at the changes I made rather than accusing me of vandalism.
Sincerly,94.226.14.216 (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 | Hello, UA Victory. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Russo-Georgian war at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Miniapolis 21:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC) |
- if you are going to revert people citing "vandalism" in the edit summary, please could you template their user talk pages at the same time - see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. This has three advantages for you:
- It often leads to these people being blocked as vandals.
- If they are not vandals, it helps them to understand that they need to change their approach, and start explaining themselves on talk pages.
- It protects you from accusations of edit-warring - since it makes it clear that you are reverting vandalism.
- --Toddy1 (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Since you have not been templating the IP editor and he/she has reverted again, I strongly recommend using the article talk page instead of blindly reverting. He/she has used the article talk page, so you will be on a "sticky wicket" if you carry on reverting him/her.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Toddy1 Thanks, I was thinking the same before I saw your message. At first I thought that he/she would reason, but apparently there's no point. --UA Victory (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Since you have not been templating the IP editor and he/she has reverted again, I strongly recommend using the article talk page instead of blindly reverting. He/she has used the article talk page, so you will be on a "sticky wicket" if you carry on reverting him/her.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi UA Victory -- I am strongly encouraging all involved to discuss the content of the article to find points of agreement rather than discussing and questioning the motives and tactics of other editors at Talk:Russo-Georgian_War#Official_Russian_POV_pushers. Instead, "suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns" (see Wikipedia:Consensus#Achieving_consensus). For example, if there is not consensus among the editors on which side "fired the first shot," propose a version that states that there is disagreement, cite a soure or two for each position, and work for consensus on that.
I also urge you to review the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars essay.
Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Russo-Georgian_War. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use Talk:Russo-Georgian_War the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--Antonioptg (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring.|The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:UA_Victory_reported_by_User:Antonioptg_.28Result:_.29. Thank you.--Antonioptg (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Template:2013–2014 unrest in Ukraine has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. NickSt (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Humanitarian impact of the Russo-Georgian War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gori. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Occupied territories of Georgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gori. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
War
Please retract your comments about "war in Eastern Ukraine". We've had this discussion before, and it is very disruptive to start it again. This is a WP:NDESC title. "Eastern Ukraine" is wrong, because it includes Kharkiv. There is no war in Kharkiv. The war is confined to Donbass. Please, I beg of you, retract those comments before they cause a great disruptive mess. We put this matter to bed with the last discussion, which was a headache. This was a compromise title. Please! RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also, please read the discussion in the talk-page archives that led to "war in Donbass", which established why "war in Eastern Ukraine" was no good. The closer addressed it at that time. Please, read this and retract your comments before it is too late. RGloucester — ☎ 15:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I do appreciate your co-operation. Here is a link to the previous discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 15:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, I've always wondered what the source for the current name was and thought it wouldn't hurt to ask. I didn't know what there was already a discussion. What does "NWar" mean? --UA Victory (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry about the extraneous "n"...meant just "war", but I'm a bit flustered with Wikipedia processes lately, so my typing has been a bit erratic. PoV pushers can really make one a little paranoid. RGloucester — ☎ 15:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, I've always wondered what the source for the current name was and thought it wouldn't hurt to ask. I didn't know what there was already a discussion. What does "NWar" mean? --UA Victory (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: BE VERY CAREFUL! I've recently found out that some people are planning to track you down in real life. [1] Follow the links in "Quoted By". I avoided posting this on your talk page since hundreds of people visit it. --UA Victory (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Georgia before August 2008.svg
Hi UA Victory
I'm now able to continue the work on Georgia_before_August_2008 again.
As the earlier request is very long and complex and I have totally forgot where I left of I hope you can help me in such a way that you start a new section for this, either on your or my Talkpage?
Please just give me the specific information I need and nothing else, I still can't handle to much stuff, thanks for your understanding. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@UA Victory: I saw that the request has been moved to Russo-Georgian_war and I would like to know if you want me to continue the graphic work as above. I would appreciate if you contacted me and told me if or not, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 10:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Goran tek-en: Sorry, I forgot to answer. Right now, I am busy and I'll contact you later if I would like to continue the work. --UA Victory (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Russo-Georgian War
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Russo-Georgian War you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Finally! Hope you're ready to put some work in, UA Victory. The time has finally come! RGloucester — ☎ 14:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Russo-Georgian War
The article Russo-Georgian War you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:Russo-Georgian War for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
|
The closure of your GA review as "failed" was very draconian, and largely inappropriate. Luckily, all is not lost. I managed to secure a new review for you, to be done by Jonas Vinther. I hope the "failure" was not too hard to bear. Your work on the article is greatly appreciated, and I hope this new review will give you the chance to raise it to Good Article quality. Enjoy this cup of tea, in the meantime. RGloucester — ☎ 05:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
@RGloucester: Thanks. At first the reviewer seemed to give some helpful recommendations, then he/she began content dispute and I feared that exactly this would happen. --UA Victory (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Russo-Georgian War
An editor has asked for a re-review of Russo-Georgian War, which I understand you have heavily contributed to and nominated. I've been asked to inform you personally that I will be handling the new review before the end of the month. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- The review has opened at Talk:Russo-Georgian War/GA2. RGloucester — ☎ 23:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Antonioptg
Who is this editor User:Antonioptg? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Russo-Georgian War
The article Russo-Georgian War you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Russo-Georgian War for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. RGloucester — ☎ 03:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: The reviewing editor delisted article and made it C-class, while before previous GA-review it was B-class. Even if all closely paraphrased text had been fixed, he would have not known it, since the editor didn't bother to find all the closely paraphrased text.
- The talk page is overloaded with old threads and when some pro-Russian readers (who are angry that the article is written from an academic POV, rather than Russian government's POV), read there titles like "Changes by UA Victory", some openly harass me there or majority of them badmouth me outside Wikipedia. Should not old replies by automatically archived? --UA Victory (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- There isn't much I can do about that. The user seems intransigent, and I have no way to fix problems that I can't see. I don't understand what the user wants us to do. Regardless, it is important to remember, however, that one always has to write in one's own words, and that one has to be faithful to sources with attribution. Regardless, I reverted your change on the Ukraine article, as "Soviet period" and "Ukrainian period" are used by the sources I cited. Whilst there was a "Soviet Ukraine", that Ukraine was not independent, and so that period is not considered "Ukrainian". RGloucester — ☎ 19:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
GAR
Russo-Georgian_War, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Help
Hello UA Victory, can you help to find source for this fact? Thank you. --g. balaxaZe✰ 13:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Giorgi Balakhadze: Try this article to find sources: Occupied territories of Georgia. The US, the EU and NATO are major actors at international level, so their position should cover the "A major part of international community" - [2], [3] and [4]. --UA Victory (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion
I know that the Russo-Georgian War situation was a bit of a mess. As such, I was wondering if you'd consider turning your attention toward Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. At the moment, some of the details are rather sparse. Your considerable talent in this area was always appreciated at Russo-Georgian War, and it would be great to have you turn your attention to something that could become very productive. RGloucester — ☎ 02:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've looked at the article. It's quite large and detailed. Maybe it should trimmed a bit. I don't have much free time, however I'll try to add something valuable. As for the Russo-Georgian War, I was doing my research and I had lots of sources to work with. --UA Victory (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: I'm sorry because I was unable to fulfill my promise. I was going to add relevant information back then, but the page was fully protected and then I saw that there were literally dozens of editors (supporting you know who) active there, so I didn't want to get involved in trouble and waste my valuable time in pointless discussions, since they would not likely be able to reach consensus. I've checked that article several times and I saw you were doing quite a good job to maintain it.
- Now my worst fear has come true and the page that we've worked hard to improve to GA, has also been invaded by certain persons who have edited this page to fit the Kremlin's official narrative. It's a shame that so few experienced editors monitor the article and even fewer have any expertise in the field to prevent this kind of POV pushing. Do you have any idea what should be done? Such editors will show up again. --UA Victory (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've looked at the article. It's quite large and detailed. Maybe it should trimmed a bit. I don't have much free time, however I'll try to add something valuable. As for the Russo-Georgian War, I was doing my research and I had lots of sources to work with. --UA Victory (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, my name is stupid!
Dear friend, I completely forgot about re-reviewing the Russo-Georgian War article... I'm stupid like that (sometimes... okay, a lot of times), but I promise you I'll get around to it tomorrow. Peace, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Jonas Vinther: Don't blame yourself, I understand perfectly well that most Wikipedia editors are volunteers and have far more pressing matters in real life and don't have to follow some strict schedule to edit on Wikipedia. Nowadays I myself mostly read WP articles rather than edit them. --UA Victory (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the Russo-Georgian War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foxhole. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2015 (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) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Warning
Your editing of Russo-Georgian war, especially the latest edits like this one [5] and the subsequent edit-warring [6][7][8] are indications of seriously disruptive tendentious editing. This is your only warning: if I see anything like this again, you will be topic-banned from the area. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Standard notice
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Reply
Well, I do not edit myself any really controversial subjects, because it is dangerous in many aspects. See my thoughts in this essay. For one thing, you just have received a black spot (above). That means you should not edit war anywhere and possibly switch to editing other pages. Speaking about content, you should not emphasize certain positions by simply adding words like "false", but instead add well sourced information that describes and explains actual events to a reader. In this case, it is important that the war was well preplanned by Russia in advance by moving certain detachments into certain positions and making other preparations (hence there is no question who was the actual aggressor). This seem to be missing in the introduction, and I can not help you with this or anything else. No time, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, UA Victory. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)