User talk:Circassiankama

Welcome!

Hello, Circassiankama, 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 and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
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! Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during September 14 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is "neutral" according to you? An article that has been signed, sealed, and approved by a number of interests that themselves are not very fair, or the actual truth according to a group of natives? I am finding Wikipedia to be atrociously unfair and narrowminded. Who is paying you to keep the other side of the story from this page?

Regarding edits made during September 14 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a 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. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Circassiankama. You have new messages at Alex Bakharev's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

September 2009

Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Abkhazia. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Abkhazia, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing "The Georgian intent to destroy the aspirations of the Abkhaz people for equal and basic rights was evident with events such as a Georgian general announcing on national and live television that his intent was to annihilate the entire Abkhazian nation (estimated at 97,000 people at the time) by sacrificing 100,000 Georgian soldiers." is your interpretation of events which goes against no original research. If you can find a couple of reliable sources that say, "the Georgian intent was to destroy the aspirations of the Abkhaz people for equal and basic rights" then perhaps it can be included in the article. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting it. One general's intent does not equal the "Georgian intent". --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys hate me enough yet? :((( Circassiankama (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)CircassianKama[reply]

No one hates you. For myself, I only have a basic understanding of what is currently going on in that part of the world. My main goal is to make sure any edits I come across are conistent with Wikipedia guidelines. You asked about citations using youtube videos. My understanding is that they're ok if not linked to videos which violate copyright. The issue with your edit is that the reference did not back up the text you were trying to add (i.e., one general/ex-minister does not speak for Georgia). Perhaps if the Georgian president said that you might have a case but it's more likely that it would get changed to "Georgian president xxx stated his intent was to.....". Do you see what I'm getting at? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marking Edits As Minor

Can you please stop doing this? Is this intentional or do you not know how to stop doing this? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia

I noticed you left many messages on Alex' talkpage, but he appears to be preoccupied, so I'll answer myself (seeing as how I reverted your edits on more than one occasion there). As other editors have told you already, the topic is highly controversial with a lot of people feeling very strongly about it. Because of this it is critically important to use the article's talk page to propose the changes you are making. As the original version has become stable and represents, more or less, a consensus among the majority of editors, you need to provide strong sources and reasons for proposed changes. If you can do this - great. If you just continue to insert biased information, it will be reverted. Please realise that beside your point of view there are others and it might be best to narrow the basic definitions to something both sides can grudgingly agree, as opposed to fighting an endless revert war. --Illythr (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I can understand how you feel, I've had my (admittedly small) share of WP:ANI requests nobody had bothered to look at. However, Alex's onwiki activity is significantly reduced this week, and he seems to be involved in a difficult arbitration case, so he may have never had the time to respond. In any case, as I said, it's best to propose changes on the article talk page first, so that you'll be able to see and respond to objections other editors may have to them. It also seems you are somewhat unfamiliar about the rules around here, so taking a look at them might be a good idea (WP:NPOV and WP:NOR come to mind). --Illythr (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, then you need to allow the "other side's story" to be told here, NOT only the Georgian/whitewashed version. This is exactly what it wrong with you guys. As you insinuate above, this is a "sensitive" topic that has a lot of controvery surrounding it, but it does not help matters in the least if you refuse to allow one side to be told while completely advocating another. This does not constitute free speech whatsoever and there should be at least a way for the Abkhazians to talk about ABKHAZIA in the best way that they can, not how GEORGIANS (an entirely different group of people, by the way) percieve it. If you truly knew the history of this region, which can easily be understood by old and modern texts by professionals, then maybe you'd reconsider your stance. I am finding this extremely appalling.

To whomever it concerns: I've removed a paragraph from this page that is utterly ridiculous and without any sort of citation. Georgians have tried vainly to claim that the native Abkhazians emigrated from another part of the Caucasus to settle in modern-day Abkhazia. Unless there is a VALID source for this, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR SUCH DRIVEL TO BE POSTED ON THIS PAGE. If your claims that this is a "sensitive topic" are given to me again, then I will counteract with the above reason. Indeed, it is a "sensitive topic" and thus this topic should be as neutral as it possibly can with regards to what Abkhazians themselves and...Georgians say about our country. I posted this on November 5, 2010.

Do not delete chunks of information without any reason

Please do not delete large chunks of information from articles as you did with this edit to the Abkhazia article. This article has been subject to large scale edit warring in recent times, and as such, it would be preferable if such a change was discussed on the talk page first. That section was already marked by me as requiring citations. When sufficient time has passed that the author has not provided citations, then I will personally remove the information. Until such a time, please desist from such antagonistic actions. --MacTire02 (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, you're telling me this: with considerable debate and persuasion, wrong and inconsistent information WILL BE DELETED from this page, am I understanding you correctly?

No you do not understand me at all. I never said anything of the sort. Please re-read what I wrote, and consult the Manual of Style with regard to editing articles. Wikipedia is NOT about what is right or wrong (that is known as a judgement, and Wikipedia is not a court) - it is about what is verifiable and sourced in reliable references. Material that is wrong will be shown to be wrong by the provision of reliable sources. Material can not be shown to be wrong if you simply delete material, without providing a reason in the edit summary, without consultation, and without providing any external reliable reference. On Wikipedia, such actions are known by one word: Vandalism. --MacTire02 (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]