Canome

Canome, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Canome! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Doctree (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

undid edits, on article 2008 Russo-Georgian War

Hello @Canome:

You've deleted the figures that were originaly added by me and corrected recently because of bad translation. Read the original Russian source that gives explicit numbers on Russian losses and you will find that exact information in the last segment.

Same goes for the losses of Georgian equipment, tanks, IFVs etc that are also explicitly documented and stated in the respective source, while again the other source only provides a claim.

The other edits are due to contradicting statements between Russian sources and lack of confirmation to specific Russian claims from the Georgian side, which have to be considered and taken into account as well.

Edit2: Notice please, that that very fact is stated on the very bottom of air force losses page of the respective source.

Finaly it would be great, if you started a talk / discussion before deleting major segments of edits.

Edit: I've also added the other pages of https://sites.google.com/site/afivedaywar/ that give exact numbers, so you see them.

TheMightyGeneral (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheMightyGeneral: The stable version gave the exact figures according to the cited sources. Your new figures don't match the cited sources. Your assumption that I can read Russian is baseless. Some of your edits use unreliable sources and some are POV.

This edit is wrong, because the cited source suggests that the Special Forces Brigade already existed during the war.

Regarding this edit, I agree that Moscow Defense Brief seems biased in stating that Georgia lost its air and naval forces and its air-defense systems. However, the fact that Georgia lost large quantities of arms is undisputed even by western sources. You inserted "especialy tanks", but the source doesn't emphasize the loss of tanks. sites.google.com seems to be a personal blog rather than reliable source. Sources aren't cited for your claims: "Not a single Su-25 has been confimed lost by Georgia" and "None of which have been confirmed by the Georgian side."

Regarding this edit, I'll say that sites.google.com is not an "actual" documentation.

In this edit, your changed numbers don't match the numbers given in the source. I couldn't find anywhere in the source a mention of "a number of artillery pieces and rocket artillery units."

In this edit, unreliable sites.google.com is cited.

This is editorialization.

These edits [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] don't cite sources.

This is editorialization.

In this edit, you wrote "15 upgraded BMP-1s", while the source only mentions only 15 BMP-2s without any mention of any kind of modernization. You wrote "nine inflatables" while the source actually mentions nine amphibian boats. You should know the difference between inflatable and amphibian boats. You wrote that the total firearm losses of Georgia were "more than 1,728 firearms", while the source actually says that 1,728 captured firearms belonged only to the Senaki Second Infantry Brigade. The source isn't in English and the translated text is very hard to read.

In these edits [6] [7] [8], you used unreliable source.

In this edit, you wrote that "the Georgian air force ceased all sorties after Russian aircraft damaged the airstrips." You mentioned this source in the edit summary. However, the source doesn't say anything of this kind. You wrote "Instead all Su-25 bombers were disasembled and hidden away." However, the source does not specify whether all Su-25 bombers of Georgia were hidden away or only those which flew towards the Roki Tunnel. In this edit, you inserted your claim not backed up by the source.

Your edits have severe issues. Don't mess up the article. Canome (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear :@Canome:, I appreciate that you are keeping this a little more civilized compared to your past edits, but really you are the one messing it up and not making it easier. Like I said, I translated those figures poorly in the past, recently looked over the original source again and corrected it accordingly. In fact there is further need for corrections.

There is a reason to why those figures are in this article to begin with.

This is the original source where I took those numbers from: http://nvo.ng.ru/wars/2010-08-13/6_aug08.html

Last segment it says in Russian:

"В ходе боевых действий российская сторона потеряла 3 танка – один Т-72Б(М), один Т-72Б и один Т-62. Все они были потеряны в результате огня противника. Намного значительней – не менее 20 единиц – были потери легкой бронетехники. Известно о потере в конфликте российскими войсками, по крайней мере, 9 БМП-1, 3 БМП-2, 2 БТР-80, 1 БМД-2, 3 БРДМ-2 и одной МТ-ЛБ. Артиллерийских установок, реактивных систем залпового огня, средств ПВО потеряно не было. Помимо бронетехники, высокими были и потери автотехники. В Южном лагере миротворцев в результате артиллерийского и танкового обстрела российского миротворческого батальона 8 августа на стоянке была уничтожена практически вся припаркованная там автотехника, не менее 20 единиц. В ходе боев 9 августа грузинским артиллерийским огнем были уничтожены 10 грузовиков ГАЗ-66 минометных батарей 135-го и 693-го мотострелковых полков, скученные на дороге. Два грузовика Урал-4320 были уничтожены днем 11 августа в результате удара грузинских вертолетов Ми-24. Еще несколько грузовиков попали в серьезные дорожно-транспортные происшествия. В ходе боевых действий были сбиты 6 российских самолетов, три Су-25, два Су-24 и один Ту-22М3. ВМФ России в ходе боевых действий потерь личного состава или повреждений техники от огня противника не имел."

Some of it I'll have to delete myself, like artillery because I misread it. It's supposed to be automatic grenade launchers, not rockets artillery (no such losses) but overall it is exactly what is written there and this IS the orginial source. Get help, someone who can properly translate it for you idk. Just plse stop deleting it, including the corrected figures. Thank you.

The rest is correct. 3 tanks, specified. 20 armoured vehicles, specified. Over 32 soft vehicles, 20 on August 8, 10 on August 9 and some lost to accidents on August 11. specified The article states that the vehicle losses were numerous and those are the ones accounted for. Reason for revert.

This is actualy my fault. The "Special Forces Brigade" replaced the lose term georgian special forces, I think I originaly did that too, because I created an article Special Forces Brigade (Georgia) - so it would link to the respective article, but a brigade did definitly not exist at that time even though it's inaccurately stated in that poorly translated casualties list. That term was used after the war when the brigade was formed and does not accurately translate the original list. Here is the original Georgian list maintained by the Ministry of Defence of Georgia: https://www.mod.gov.ge/p/august-wars It says: "სერჟანტი თავგორაშვილი კახაბერ გიორგის ძე - სპეციალური ოპერაციების დაჯგუფება" Translated: Sergeant Tavgorashvili, Kakhaber, Giorgis dze - Special Operations Group. In fact thank you for bringing it up, I will replace it with the link to the original list. Edit: there also happens to be a direct mention of the SF battalion during the war here: http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/pub1069.pdf, also ToA </ref>http://www.cast.ru/files/The_Tanks_of_August_sm_eng.pdf</ref> Reason for Revert.

Just a side note even if it's not interesting to the subject or to you: a brigade is a brigade when it consists of at least more than two battalions. That was not the case at that time and the Special Forces Battalion itself was also not completly formed and ready for deployment because only the Alpha Company finished it's training with US special forces. Bravo and Charlie did not. The Ranger Battalion joined in a year later. So no, the SF brigade was not formed yet at that point.

The vehicle they are referring to is called "inflatables" as in inflatable boats and Rigid-hulled inflatable boats. There is no such thing as "amphibious boats". It's just yet another example of poorly translated and I specificaly provided an article link for it .... Reason for Revert.

The 15 BMPs that were captured are also specified as "Skhval" upgrades in the equipment list of https://sites.google.com/site/afivedaywar/Home/gesalvage, also confirmed here: http://nevskii-bastion.ru/bmp-1u-shkval/ here: http://btvt.narod.ru/4/shkval/shkval.htm and here http://warfiles.ru/show-83357-izuchit-ukrainskiy-boevoy-modul-dlya-bmp-shkval-rossii-pomogla-gruzinskaya-armiya.html. Which not only confirms the losses provided in other sources but also the photos taken. This is again my bad, should have provided these sources too. But still another Reason for Revert.

No. I have written no such thing. I clearly wrote "more than 1,728 firearms" .... (which means more than 1,728 firearms, nothing else) were confiscated, not a "total of" as you falsely claim. This and the majority of your reverts makes me think you haven't read them through properly .... Unless you can provide a total number of firearms, ^that is the only specific figure to go with, which can be cited from numerous articles not just that one. Reason for Revert.

To all the Georgian losses I at least provided sources for that, providing actual visual facts and documented list on equipment, in contrast to just claims from Russian magazines and briefings. Think of it what you like, but that is at least something to work with and it's not unreliable at all, just because there is a "google" tag in it. So, bluntly dismissing everything yet at the same time agreeing to that Russian claims seem biased at the very least, does not compute. So I don't see any value in such a dismissal. Reason for revert.

The site clearly states that the Georgian side denies any combat losses in the air. Georgia did not and does not have many Su-25 to begin with. It were always up to a dozen at best. Reason for Revert.

Edit: also "According to Russia" is not POV. All those questionable claims are from the Russian side only - which in turn are used by other sources, that is why I added it. If there were say Georgian claims on any of those exaggerated ones, it would be a whole different story. But there are literaly none.

Full Revert.

I'm not doing any such thing. All I'm trying is to clarify and unbias it as much as possible. You can either help out with that or keep blindly reverting chunks of sourced and researched edits.

Edit 2: I've added more sources in support of the information, so please read them through, instead of completly reverting everything and it would be great if you didn't do that in general. Thank you.

With best regards TheMightyGeneral (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You appreciate me for being more civilized compared to my past edits, but I've never personally attacked you. A reversion isn't the uncivilized action. I don't know what you translated poorly in the past, but I see the figures before your edits were supported by the sources. You restored your problematic edits again without accepting my explanations.

I couldn't find anywhere in the source the mention of "at least 32 non-armoured vehicles." Where does that figure come from? There's no mention of automatic grenade launchers. You are adding original research.

Your created article on the Special Forces Brigade (Georgia) says that the brigade has been active since 1991, but your statement here that it didn't exist in 2008 is confusing.

Your statement that there is no such thing as "amphibious boat" is wrong, since there is the article on the Amphibious vehicle. Your source doesn't mention inflatable boats. You are adding original research.

The blogs aren't reliable sources, whether they're published on Google or not.

You added that "more than 1,728 firearms and several air defence and artillery systems that were abandoned." This implies that more that 1,728 firearms were abandoned by the Georgian Armed Forces. Your source says that more that 1,728 firearms were abandoned by the Senaki Second Infantry Brigade. Do you see the difference between the Georgian Armed Forces and the Senaki Second Infantry Brigade? The Senaki Second Infantry Brigade is a part of the Georgian Armed Forces, but the Georgian Armed Forces consist of many brigades.

Some of your edits may be sourced. However, you either use unreliable sources or the text isn't supported by the cited sources. Your English seems less than perfect, if may I say so. Your assumption that I'm pro-Russian in any way is wrong. The problem isn't my alleged pr-Russian bias, but your original research and misquoting of sources. I've read your edits thoroughly and I found out the issues such as original research and the lack of reliable sources.

I'll explain the issues of your new edits.

This edit replaced the English-language page of the Georgian Ministry of Defense with the Georgian-language one. English-language sources are preferred.

This edit added information about automatic grenade launchers, but the source doesn't mention automatic grenade launchers.

This edit uses unreliable source. You complained about using Russian sources.

This edit uses a news article about Ukrainian army equipment, which has nothing to do with the 2008 war.

This edit doesn't cite any reliable source. The Russian losses during the single engagement isn't as important as the total Russian losses, which are already mentioned in the article.

This edit is sourced, which is fine. However, the details of the single engagement are in the wrong section. The engagement is already mentioned in the Battle of Tskhinvali section.

This edit cited source for "The Georgian air force ceased all sorties after Russian aircraft damaged the airstrips." However, I couldn't find any mention of that on the cited pages. This edit is unsupported by the cited pages.

This edit cites kommersant.ru, but I couldn't find any mention of Georgian T-72 tanks in all of the kommersant.ru articles cited.

This edit cites two separate pages, but I couldn't find anything about 17 vehicles. One Su-25 was lost in one incident. However, that particular Su-25 is likely already counted among the total aviation losses of Russia.

This edit isn't supported by the cited source.

This edit doesn't cite "other sources". Canome (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Canome, literaly none of your points have any valid backing because the information, all of it is available in those exact sources you keep casualy deleating -, accumulative and contextual it is all there - wich is a behaviour I am now classifying as Vandalism. You are deleting original figures to keep some minor detail from a series of Important Information edits intact as if people who are in search for facts would now magicaly change their views and go for what a nonsensical compromise .... ? I am sorry but you have picked the wrong person for that. Right now I'm not available to these matters as I am vacant, though I take them very seriously and I don't Plan to leave any of them until the correct information remains. This is not a matter of POV but pure facts and no I simply looked over your edit history because I was curious to why you keep doing this and the vast majority of your edits concern this article.

I don't think you are at all qualified to judge my ( or other's for that matter ) English considering you are accusing me of calling you "pro-x" or "biased-in favour of x" without even a Remote hint, let alone any sort of Implication and on top of it, apart from completly contradicting yourself, still are not able to grasp, understand terms and meanings apparently and at least half way properly translate any of the non-English sources, from which the information is taken from. The original figures mind you which I added years ago and honestly I don't care if Google.translate isn't helping you. That is your Problem. Don't put words in peoples mouths and stop deleting sourced information. Not that very difficult. I once again also highly doubt that you have supposedly "thoroughly" read even half of what I wrote because your reasoning doesn't apply in the slightest.

Talking about civilized: it is definitly a good and constructive advice to keep such sarcastic notions in check, especialy with ones own apparent imperfections.

With best regards and hopes for change. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

So, now let me explain again, why you shouldn't be deleting sourced information:

• "I couldn't find anywhere in the source the mention of "at least 32 non-armoured vehicles." Where does that figure come from? There's no mention of automatic grenade launchers. You are adding original research."
  • Canome, I will not accept any further revert in regards to that particular issue. Yes there is no 32 directly written as number anywhere in that article but the article clearly and unmistakably states three different occurances of soft vehicle losses which accumulate to at least 30 vehicles destroyed in 2 days, 20 on August 8, 10 on August 9 and more damaged and destroyed on August 11 which IS at least 30 vehicles destroyed. That is basic mathematics. Please inform yourself properly on what "Original research" means.

• "This edit replaced the English-language page of the Georgian Ministry of Defense with the Georgian-language one. English-language sources are preferred."
  • Yes for a reason stated you completly ignored.
  • No, "English sources are preferred" does not mean you can simply disregard the original & correct source which is being misquoted or wrongly translated < which makes the alternate source unreliable, thus not replacing the original until there is proper translation. Or replace it with proper translation. No valid reasons for your revert.
• "This edit added information about automatic grenade launchers, but the source doesn't mention automatic grenade launchers."
  • Please use a different translator or get someone to translate it for you. I will not further discuss this.
• "Your created article on the Special Forces Brigade (Georgia) says that the brigade has been active since 1991, but your statement here that it didn't exist in 2008 is confusing."
  • In what way is it confusing ? it doesn't state at all that the brigade has been active since 1991 but Georgian special forces in general. I am not the only one who worked on that article and it is also not exclusively about the current SF formations of Georgia. Maybe read first before even tackling it ?
• "The blogs aren't reliable sources, whether they're published on Google or not."
  • Please educate yourself on "Blog as sources" policy on wikipedia. Blogs can be just as reliable as other sources on the internet and there is no particular problem with this one per conditions especialy because it's supported with actual and the only available extended visual material. It's a source and considering the figures from other articles, mostly kommersant etc, quite reliable too as far as it goes.
• "Your statement that there is no such thing as "amphibious boat" is wrong, since there is the article on the Amphibious vehicle. Your source doesn't mention inflatable boats. You are adding original research.
  • Amphibious boat ≠ Amphibious Vehicles. The term Amphibious Boat does not apply. What would you classify as "amphibious boat" ? boats have their actual classifications. If you are interested, then how about you educate yourself on that first ? .... the Georgians used / use rigid hull inflatables and that's what they meant with it, again wrongly translated. That is not "original research" it's just the correction of a faul translation. Why you would have an issue with such things is beyond me. No reasons for any revert.

• "You added that "more than 1,728 firearms and several air defence and artillery systems that were abandoned." This implies that more that 1,728 firearms were abandoned by the Georgian Armed Forces. Your source says that more that 1,728 firearms were abandoned by the Senaki Second Infantry Brigade. Do you see the difference between the Georgian Armed Forces and the Senaki Second Infantry Brigade? The Senaki Second Infantry Brigade is a part of the Georgian Armed Forces, but the Georgian Armed Forces consist of many brigades."
  • First of all, the GAF consisted at that time of 5 actual brigades, not "many" and the 5th was freshly formed. Secondly it is a figure used by several sources and implies that more than 1,728 firearms were captured. That means it can be anything from 1,728 upwards. It is the only actual figure that exists on captured firearms. Wheter some sources claim it's from a single brigade or not is of no relevance. Maybe the others didn't lose any at all or no significant numbers. In any case at least we have an actual figure and it is preferred over some vague statements like "huge numbers". "Huge numbers" can be anything from a couple hundred to a few thousand. See the difference and why it is preferred .... ?

• "This edit uses unreliable source. You complained about using Russian sources."
  • I complained about some claims being biased, not about Russian sources in general. I take half the information from Russian sources. Your argument is completly invalid.
• "This edit doesn't cite any reliable source. The Russian losses during the single engagement isn't as important as the total Russian losses, which are already mentioned in the article."
  • I added a source for it and it isn't listed or stated anywhere as unreliable. The second argument is no valid reason for a deletion whatsoever.
• "This edit cited source for "The Georgian air force ceased all sorties after Russian aircraft damaged the airstrips." However, I couldn't find any mention of that on the cited pages. This edit is unsupported by the cited pages."
  • False, it does not only support but literaly states the Georgian air forces commenced only one air mission and not one more throughout the conflict on page 105 ( Quote: "Altough the Georgian Su-25 attack aircraft conducted just one sortie in the early morning of August 8 and did not take to the air again for the rest of the war" ) and the fact they were not able to is supported by the facts of completly disabling all Georgian airstrips which is clearly mentioned on pages 60, 105 and also 112 which I will add too. That is not original research, but simply citing a source and putting 1 + 1 togheter, nothing more, which you seem to have enormous difficulties with.
• "This edit cites kommersant.ru, but I couldn't find any mention of Georgian T-72 tanks in all of the kommersant.ru articles cited."
  • I am sorry, are you just looking for just numbers and English letters ? or actualy even at least trying to translate anything ? it is literaly stated in the source, "at least 10 T-72" https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1285227
• "This edit cites two separate pages, but I couldn't find anything about 17 vehicles. One Su-25 was lost in one incident. However, that particular Su-25 is likely already counted among the total aviation losses of Russia."
  • Accumulating figures given in the article to a summ does not equal "Original Research". Again please educate yourself properly on those wiki terms. Who is disputing the Su-25 incident ?
• "This edit isn't supported by the cited source."
  • Yes it is, it is literaly stated on that very page. I wrote at least 22 instead of 20 because 2 were captured in an earlier engagement few pages back .... which amounts to 22 in total. Read the article please ....
• "This edit doesn't cite "other sources".
  • Yes it does, the site you disregard as a "unreliable source" and the very quote with air forces losses is also mentioned just below the figures. I will not further discuss any such facts that are literaly written letter by letter in said sources.

Please be somewhat logical with your arguments. You say you couldn't find what I cited, yet those exact information are in the exact articles and pages. You say "Original Research" when it is simply summing up figures. In short, your complaints have no validity and are rather very confusing. You claim you can't read Russian yet make absolutly no attempts to at least try to translate or have Russian lang sources translated properly for your own use. Yet at the same time revert my corrections on figure taken from said Russian lang source. Wath is the meaning of that ? fruther you put words in my mouth, yet I haven't said anything about you being biased or similar. Such behaviour does make people become suspicious about your motives. Either correct your way of treating people and the editing policy or at least have proper arguments for your actions.

I will see that some of the refs in question are removed if they were deleted, or cites that are not correct, corrected. But full reverts ? I think not.

Regards TheMightyGeneral (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Kommersant says that Georgians destroyed 10 trucks of the Russian mortar batteries on 9 August. Therefore, your argument that the total number of the destroyed non-armoured vehicles must include the vehicles destroyed on 9 August is invalid.

The English-language page is a translation of the Georgian one. No reason to change the source.

Your statement - "Blogs can be just as reliable as other sources on the internet" is wrong. Please read WP:UGC.

The source mentions amphibious boats. Your edits must conform to the cited sources.

Again, you are demonstrating an WP:IDHT attitude. The losses in a single engagement must be counted among the total losses of the war. The battle involving Khrulyov is already described in the Battle of Tskhinvali section: "On the same day a Russian advance column, led by Lieutenant-General Anatoly Khrulyov, was ambushed by Georgian special forces near Tskhinvali; Khrulyov was wounded in the leg." The article must not contain duplicates.

The source did not come to conclusion that the Russian bombing of the airstrips caused Georgian aircraft to cease sorties. Please read WP:SYNTHESIS. Thank you for clarifying that page 112 documents the damage to the Georgian airfields. But the section is about equipment losses.

I have now added the English-language source for the number of destroyed Georgian T-72 tanks.

I counted all mentioned vehicles on pages 61 and 62, and they do not add up to 17. One lost Su-25 in a single incident is already counted among the total estimates of air force losses in the last paragraph of the article.

I have updated the article which now states that Russian troops have destroyed about 20 Georgian tanks after the hostilities had ended.

This edit duplicated the same event described below in the paragraph: "On the same day a Russian advance column, led by Lieutenant-General Anatoly Khrulyov, was ambushed by Georgian special forces near Tskhinvali; Khrulyov was wounded in the leg."

This edit cited a source which does not ever mention Tskhinvali or Khrulyov.

This edit cited a source which does not ever mention Khrulyov.

This edit claims that Georgia operated over 190 T-72 tanks, but the source does not support this claim.

And last but not least, I saw that you have already been blocked for similar behaviour. I am warning you if you again restore your problematic edits, I will report you to the ANEW. My patience has run out. Canome (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not insiting on anything but correct information. It's all about basic facts not opinions and views.

• Let's begin with the first issue of edits. The source for Ossetian civilian losses literaly states in the source that it is not a complete list of losses, hence the "At least". So why did you remove that. It just makes no sense.

• EDIT:ToA has the actual Russian material losses summed up on page 136 (), you don't need to translate anything anymore. It is in English and unequivocal. So stop deleting the corrected soft-vehicle figure, which is 32, in future please. This should resolve the dispute. Thank you.

• As I already stated above, read the wiki on Blog policy, blogs are not per-se unreliable or forbidden to use. There are at least two contradicting claims on those specific figures. EDIT: Forgot to mention that I replaced that one air force claim with another more accurate one from ToA, same claim, no change, better source. Don't delete anymore. Thank you.

• It is still not "Original Research"

• That is an invalid argument for deleting everything. You know what is the right thing to do ? correct it. Why don't you do that instead when you find such mistakes instead of vandalising the entire segment ?

• That edit is something I can agree to as it is clearly stated in ToA and should replace any vague claims. Both destroyed in combat and after ceasefire.

• That is an agreeable edit.

• You are right. I forgot to add that page number for that as well: That specific figure is on page 19 not 47 of the article and the figure is still correct. It's actualy exactly 191 and I wrote at least. 190 which is correct. I will change that immediatly.

What I don't understand though is why you again deleted the rest of the information that IS on page 47. Once again, you delete an entire line or segment because of a simple mistake, not even something that goes against editing policies. That is the whole problem with your editing. But apparently you're slowly getting the curve.

• This is painfuly obvious ( http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/publications/articles/here-s-how-nato-can-open-a-path-to-membership-for-georgia "....and a small number of Georgian special operations forces stopped a much larger Russian unit in South Ossetia, wounding the commanding general..." ) - There is only one known case of Russian general being wounded in an attack by Georgian special operations forces but sure, before you accuse me of "POV" and "Original Research" again, I will edit it accordingly to your complain, then I will see how what you will do then .... and again another case of completly removing sourced information instead of 'correcting' it.

• EDIT:made further changes, re-added the Senaki one, although it's the only total figure on firearms, but to avoid any further senseless war.
• I finaly managed to find the source on the rigid-hull-inflatables and replaced it with the dated incorrectly translated article. Don't revert that please.

• Your deletion of original sources as resource for correct information is still invalid.

That and the issue at hand are two entire different topics and my block was due to the violation of basic editing rule, which is that you are not allowed to make 3 reverts in one day - not because I disagreed with someone. You should rather take a lesson from it to avoid doing anything like that yourself. But most importantly you should be very careful with lashing out threats because they are for one very unproductive, secondly you are not an admin, thirdly blocks are preventive in nature, you are basicaly trying to threat someone with punitive action ( which is against guidelines ), as standart user, to push through your opinion .... and your edits are very questionable the very least. I may actualy request an admins attention if you keep vandalising that segment. Your patience is irrelevant. Just don't delete information that is backed up by valid sources / references. Reporting people for reverting opposing what I consider vandalism at this point ( because you delete everything not just matters that can be discussed ) won't help your issue at all. Admins will take a look and judge on their own.

EDIT: I hope my recent edits will solve this dispute and we or rather you will be able to come in terms with the new solution because this time I didn't leave any room for any ambiguities or reasons to why you'd again delete information that is properly sourced and ref'd with 100% validity.

Have a nice day and keep it civil. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You have to cite reliable sources to prove that you are adding "correct" information to the articles. You also have to specify the exact page numbers near the every claim. Otherwise, other editors will think that you are adding original research.

It is you who has to read Wiki policy on blogs which says "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable." The Wiki policy lists blogs as unreliable sources.

Krulyov's battle must not be included in the section on equipment losses. The wounding of Krulyov is already described in the Battle of Tskhinvali section.

I propose to remove the claims of Moscow Defense brief about Georgia since the source is outdated and is contradicted by more recent publications.

Accusations of vandalism is a demonstration of bad faith. I am actually helping you and correcting the errors in your writing. You were blocked for failing to listen to other editors and insisting on your preferred version of the article. Remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and other editors may change your contributions.

In this edit, you wrote "At least 17 vehicles including a Su-25 bomber". This demonstrates your English proficiency problem. You do not understand that a vehicle is a means for transportation on ground.

RT is not a reliable source.

In this edit, you cited a book published in 2007. The war, during which Russians seized amphibious boats, happened in 2008. I found out that page 75 of Tanks of August mentions the loss of the rigid-hulled inflatables.

This edit is incorrect since 230-240 tanks were tanks of all kinds, not just T-72 tanks. You yourself gave "better sourcing" in the edit summary as a reason to replace sites.google.com

In the edit summary of this edit, you have admitted that you had earlier inserted unsourced original research.

In this edit, you wrote that 2S7 Pions were "the most powerful artillery pieces in the Georgian arsenal." But the source does not support this assertion. This is original research.

In this edit, you wrote "two navy vessels were sunk after the ceasefire in port." But the source did not make such claim. Cited pages 61 and 62 do not support your claim: "The Russian military sustained no losses in the artillery, air defence and naval forces." I corrected your error and found that claim on page 136.

In this edit, you wrote that three helicopters were lost in a crash. But actually two were destroyed. I see that later you corrected your error.

I found out that this claim "The Georgian air force ceased all sorties after their first mission" is actually on page 111, not on pages 60 and 105 that you had cited.

And last but not least, you wrote in your edit summaries that your edits had been requested by me. I have never made any request to edit on my behalf. I was merely pointing out flaws in your edits. Do not use misleading edit summaries! Canome (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry Canome, but the editing history does not lie. Yes I made mistakes but you insist on knowing the sources, understanding them and reading them while evidence in editing and behaviour suggests otherwise. You were wrong, plain and simple. I don't know the reason, if it's poor understanding of the sources or just laziness, but as you see now, what I was trying to correct, was not wrong to begin with. Pretending to be innocent and productive won't magicaly change that fact. The sources were always there. While I admit to have some things accidently mixed up (though corrected), the same sources were available to you without any retrains or limitations just as to anyone else. So there is literaly no reason or excuse for your behaviour. You just proven and demonstrated yourself to have edited without thoroughly reading any of the sources.

• We can go back and forth now on insisting who has to read what, but to what end ? there is an entire article on it and you wrongly insist on one sub condition. Won't further discuss it as better soruces are used now.

• Khrulyov is mentioned in context of equipment losses. Even your current edit is very confusing. Previously you insisted to not mention him at all as the two independent sources give only implications, yet you use said source to mention him .... Whatever, keep it now how it is.

• Your reasoning is generaly understandable. However that argument can apply to many sources in this article. I don't know if to approve at all, but sure. To avoid further conflict.

• I see you've read my blocking case and admin responses (EDIT: but still don't understand the reason to why I was blocked, nvm - so much for English proficiency). Good for you. How about instead of just acting all productive and innocent, you actualy draw some lessons from my technical error and stop reverting whole edits ? because this is about actualy undisputably relevant information in a specific section of an article. You literaly removed entire sections of sourced information on multiple occasions now and your edits seemed very POV and vandalistic. Like for example, give me a reason to why you completly removed the Russian ground vehicle losses in your previous edit, or was it just by mistake ?

• "This demonstrates your English proficiency problem." Canome, such remarks are a bit laughable no ? considering you have demonstrated now on multiple occasions that you do not understand some of the basic terms such as Vehicle. It is a general term that applies to ground, air and naval vehicles and there is no obscurity or vagueness about it.

• • You have also insisted in your previous edits on using "Ambhibious Boat" which is not something applied to navy vessels or boats in general and only used to describe a very specific type of amphibious vehicle.

• • Fruther the term 'lost' and casaulties for instance, in general as of military matters can apply to anything from missing, wounded, captured or killed, in this case, captured, damaged or destroyed.

• • Destroyed means destroyed. When a source states "destroyed" it does not mean "impaired", it means destroyed. That particular edit is among the most confusing of your edits. Impaired means at very best taken out of comission. It is not the same as completly destroyed, which is precicely what is meant.

• • Understand also that a vehicle and an upgraded version of said vehicle are two seperate things and must be treated as such.

A good advise for the future. When you want to achieve compromise and consensus, at least try to avoid unrelevant personal remarks, especialy when they backfire.

• No. The Historical Dictionary of Georgia comes in several editions, I cited from the 2015 one, you are talking about the 2007 one. EDIT: Here is a sample from google books: (https://books.google.de/books?id=JNNQCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA139&dq=historical+dictionary+of+georgia+inflatables&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9h_OZpq_XAhXMthoKHVo7CgoQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=inflatable&f=false) I will re-add it as source and correct the isbn. It is good however that you also found it on ToA. Two sources are always better than one.

• Yes I did, but there is still no reason to remove it altogheter, as the source itself is valid. I will however 'tweak' it as you put it.

• How exactly is that relevant when I subsequently corrected it ? like what exactly is the purpose of that point ? if I made a mistake and left it there you would have a point. But I didn't. That is an essential difference. You made mistakes but insisted on leaving it at that until now, partialy.

• "Do not use misleading edit summaries!" - that is not misleading. There is an entire discussion history on the article here on your talk page where you insist on and reuqest changes from my part.

It is good to see at least that we are slowly coming to a compromise and I will keep correcting what needs to be corrected on this issue. The rest of your edits is good and very acceptable.

TheMightyGeneral (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You really need to stop ranting and accept criticism positively. Your early edits lacked reliable sourcing.

Yes, I admit that I was wrong about Ossetian civilian losses because I had lost track of your edits.

I removed Russian ground losses entirely in my previous edits, because you had not cited reliable source explicitly supporting your claims.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a vehicle is "a machine, usually with wheels and an engine, used for transporting people or goods on land, especially on roads." The Oxford Dictionary defines the vehicle as "A thing used for transporting people or goods, especially on land, such as a car, lorry, or cart."

"Damaged" and "impaired" are synonyms. See definition of "impaired" on dictionary.com. You must avoid using the exact words of the sources not to infringe copyright.

There is a large difference between correcting your errors after they have been pointed out to you by other editors and editing on behalf of other editors.

In this edit you again reinserted the claim that two boats were sunk in Poti after I had told you that the ToA does not make such claim. You also claimed that Russian attack caused the Georgian air force to cease sorties. The source does not make that assertion. The cessation of sorties and the Russian attacks on the airstrips are mentioned separately and the ToA does not make connection between these two events. Read WP:NOR policy which says that "original research" refers to "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The source implies that the Georgian air force ceased sorties to avoid engagement with the Russians.

This edit violates WP:SYNTHESIS policy since only the ToA states that Georgia may have lost a boat at sea and only the HDoG states that four were sunk in port. Your edit lumped both sources together at the end of the paragraph and implied that both sources state both combat loss at sea and the attack in Poti.

I don't think this source is needed anymore. The source is a Russian-language review of the ToA and cites figures of the ToA. The ToA is already cited in the article. Canome (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• I am sorry if I upset you but you must also understand that I accept only constructive criticism, not however remarks that seem rather impulsive and would better suit the sender. Look at this from my POV: would you take that as "positive/constructive criticism ?
• Can happen. I also mixed up the pages in my previous edits because I was doing it at late night. It's human.
• Except that source is not unreliable and I did cite the numbers correctly as it "turns out" in the end - which was the trigger for this entire dispute. The fact it happened before we took ToA as primary source is technicaly ( and from my POV litearly ) still a very poor excuse for that behaviour. It seemed very POV Canome and you delivered no valid arguments from the POV of someone who just wanted to correct something that was incorrectly cited. Please try to understand my frustration dealing with such edits ....
• Vehicle (<----maybe get a friendly hint next time .... ) is a general term for means of transportation not only in English but several other languages and applies to ground, air, space and amphibious vehicles like ships, submersives etc. The term vehicle applies to all kind of vehicles in ANY English dictionary and adverbs such as "usualy","especialy" serve to not exclude anything. Even your own source makes sure of that. Are you going to call this "Original Research" too ?
• Impaired ≠ Destroyed. Destroyed = destroyed. The source clearly and unequivocally states destroyed. Such things are not a matter of POV and debate Canome. I have no issue with the term "impaired" when applied correctly.
  • Use your "impaired" if you like instead of "damaged" but not for a completly different state of an object or as synonym for terms with completly different meaning.
• Canome, I corrected a simple error which I found myself and not something an other editor pointed out to me. Let's start with that basic difference. Your point simply made no sense and I asked what your intention was.
• Actualy there is another important reason we've missed here. Namely that of Russian air defence on page 103. I'd put that in.
• While there is zero harm or confusion done with that, you also got a point.
• Fair point.

TheMightyGeneral (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You can ask at RSN whether these blogs you had used before November 4 are reliable or not [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Some other cited sources did not support your claims.

I trust the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries.

In this edit, you wrote that the total number of APCs was 168. Actually, only BTR-70 and BTR-80 were APCs and their total number was 66. BRM-1K, BRDM-2 and MT-LB are not armoured personnel carriers, but armoured vehicles. Canome (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Almost all of my previous edits, with just a couple unintentional mistakes, are supported by the sources that are being used now and there are more. For the time being however this should work.
• Sure, you also don't have to trust anyone's word. I am just stating a simple fact.
• No Infantry mobility vehicles are all APCs. The only thing you could seperate are BRDMs as armored cars because their primary function is reconnaissance and patrol. The MT-LB while stated multi purpose is generaly considered an armoured personnel carrier. That there are various combat suited variants of it doesn't change that fact. It's primary purpose is to carry troops. The only mistake I did here is mixing up the BRM-1k when it actualy is a BMP variant and belongs to IFVs. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Your numbers are incorrect since the source only identifies BMP-1 and BMP-2 vehicles as infantry fighting vehicles. You apparently added 11 BRM-1K vehicles to the number of IFVs. The source defines BRM-1K as combat reconnaissance vehicle. BRM-1K and BRDM-2 are reconnaissance vehicles. I will count MT-LB vehicles separately. Canome (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Good point. Good edit.

TheMightyGeneral (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The article text states that one South Ossetian T-55 tank was damaged. However, the source states that the tank remained operable and mobile. I'm going to delete this. Canome (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)