This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For all gdfl info on content then see 2008 South Ossetia War per this time and date. (Hypnosadist) 23:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suggest this be merged back into the main article. We don't have separate "International reaction" articles for everything that happens, and not for conflicts or wars. While Kosovo 1999 is a similar situation to this one (draw your own parallels, people), there is no good reason for this to be its own article, at least for now. Maybe if there is a declaration of independence (again?) that elicits an international reaction. But not right now. Balkan Fever 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1358 This should be added... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.80.212 ( talk) 22:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, the info that Israel will stop shipments to Georgia is false, Israel officials have denied that, though they stopped selling unmanned drones. Do a google search, you'll see it come up. 72.140.80.212 ( talk) 23:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Please revert this edit which removed the photo of the US president. The article is about the international reaction to the war, and the photo shows the US reaction, and the US is the most powerful and the only hyperpower on this planet (whether we like it or no!), therefore whatever the US says is of extreme importance. The photo also adds value to the article, and it also helps the reader understand the US position. NerdyNSK ( talk) 01:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Does the photo have any significance to "International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war"? No it doesn't. What photo would have had significance if it was made in South Ossetia for an example but like this it looks like any other Bush photo. Otherwise we could have this in the article too:
And we don't need it.-- Avala ( talk) 12:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The article 2008 South Ossetia War was moved to 2008 South Ossetia war and for consistency I believe International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia War should be moved to International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war (this does not mean that I agree with the name, as I would prefer 2008 Russia-Georgia War, but I propose this to keep consistency with the main article). NerdyNSK ( talk) 03:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Do the tables need to be numbered? Countries are already (mostly) listed in alphabetical order. Numbering makes it difficult to insert new entries. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 04:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Would these be fine?
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080810-153729/OFWs-in-Georgia-safe-but-ready-to-go OFWs in Georgia safe, but ready to go
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view/20080810-153785/Evacuation-plans-ready-for-Filipinos-in-Georgia Evacuation plans ready for Filipinos in Georgia
Wasn't able to find anything from a reaction from the Philippine gov't. Will look more. Ominae ( talk) 07:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
How about making a diagram? It would fit the article well. For example, there would be "lefts" and "rights" supporting either Russian or Georgian POV, with neutral bar in the middle, and few bars to each side, where extremity is shown through it's closeness to border. Colors like blue and green for sides and cyan for neutral would also improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.189.199.57 ( talk) 11:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The situation is too complex for a linear graph. For instance, some organizations might disapprove of Georgia's initial move north but also disapprove of the degree of Russia's response. Cwilsyn ( talk) 08:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to include Obama and McCain's reactions to the recent events in Georgia? They are US Government officials in some sense, and (unless something major happens) will be in charge of the US in the aftermath of this. Both have denounced Russia, though McCain was more vitriolic in his denunciations. Orville Eastland ( talk) 13:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the article should be limited to official statements. I suggest removing the Greek political parties and looking at the German section. Cwilsyn ( talk) 08:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
For better objectivity, reaction of CSTO should be also shown, cause there`s reaction of NATO. -- 193.232.9.194 ( talk) 11:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody edit the article? Don`t you want to add some objectivity? :) If you are so lazy to find sorces here`s one [ [1]]( in russian, I can translate if you like) -- 193.232.9.194 ( talk) 14:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this could serve as an update for the Red Cross position? OelnJa ( talk) 15:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh, just noted that this article is not protected, so I could have done that myself. But thanks for adding it! OelnJa ( talk) 17:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It is a voice from one of the sides in response to the reactions, so it is not "international reaction" by itself. But it has been suggested in the Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war that it may fit here better:
Russia Warns Baltics, Poland To Pay For Georgia Stance. 132.68.248.44 ( talk) 21:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not fond of watching over american elections, but it is somewhat related:
John McCain's top foreign-policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, is a leading expert on U.S.-allied Georgia -- and was a paid lobbyist for the former Soviet republic until March, in the run-up to what has become a major battle between Georgia and Russia.
Democratic rival Barack Obama's presidential campaign was quick to try to paint Mr. Scheunemann's dual roles as a conflict of interest after Sen. McCain swiftly took Georgia's side in the dispute, and cited it as evidence that Sen. McCain is "ensconced in a lobbyist culture," as Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan told reporters over the weekend.
McCain may lose some points and Obama win some. Garret Beaumain ( talk) 00:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how this is relevant to the conflict, or to the election. McCain has always been a strict critic of Russia, and it is certain that his response wouldn't have been any different either way. It will defiantly not "lose some points" in the election. 69.245.80.218 ( talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
[3] The leaders of Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia rushed to Saakashvili's defense Tuesday, traveling to Georgia and appearing together at a mass pep rally in the center of Tbilisi, the capital.
"We came to fight since our old neighbor (Russia) thinks that it can fight us," Polish President Lech Kaczynski said. "This country thinks that old times will come back, but that time is over. Everyone knows that the next one could be Ukraine, then Poland."
-- Molobo ( talk) 23:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Press releases from Latvian Ministry of Foreign affairs: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], maybe some of these are relevant to this article ~~ Xil ( talk) 12:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is a useful reference imho. It does need consistent date formats and punctuation style, as well as updating. Cwilsyn ( talk) 08:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Their is no
rational for the use of the Nato flag, (
Image:Flag_of_NATO.svg).
I think it needs to be removed as I cannot see how using it here qualifies for
Fair Use.
FFMG (
talk)
11:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Only Cuba supported Russia, not 'other countries'. Not even Belarus supported the Russian invasion. -- Molobo ( talk) 18:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth is the Polish statement so large?! I'm sure we can cut about 80% of it out so its just a line or two to match the rest of the article?? Any objections? Taifar ious1 03:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Do not clear it, please, be objective. If it is possible - add it to the page.
The new Internet site Russia-vs-Georgia have been created recently. The main goal of this site is to give all visitors do voting one of the side and comment it . The authors asserts that «Project doesn't support any of the sides. Our aim – together with visitors investigate real situation.» [2]. The abbreviation vs is striked, obviously it is the hint to understanding that «Russia is not versus Georgia». -- Korolev Alexandr ( talk) 11:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Either we should remove the "Unrecognized states and non-state entities" section altogether, or we should preserve the comments of all unrecognized states that have anything to say on this issue. The section is not titled "Unrecognized states and non-state entities that Russia approves of."
Speaking of which: I'm sure that al-Qaida has said something on the issue. Could someone add them, as well as putting the Caucasus Emirate back (and maybe adding Kosovo)? ExOttoyuhr ( talk) 14:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. Looking through the revision logs: User:Dkis also blanked the Caucasus Emirate entry -- and there as with Ichkeria, he simply blanked the entry without bothering to add an edit summary for why he was deleting information. Dkis, if there's a reason these unrecognized states aren't kosher, please post that here, but otherwise remember that unrecognized means unrecognized, and all unrecognized states belong here. Not to mention that the reaction of the Muslim rebel states is very important here -- if there's anyone who's going to escalate this war, it's them. ExOttoyuhr ( talk) 14:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Meco, the footnote for the paragraph that you edited linked to http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1833364,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics -- in which General Anatoly Nogovitsyn is reported by Interfax to threaten a nuclear strike against Poland. When a controversial claim is made and a footnote is provided to back it up, check the footnote before contravening the claim; Wikipedia has and deserves a very good reputation for reliability when citations are provided. ExOttoyuhr ( talk) 20:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Once again, User:Dkis has blanked the position statements of the ChRI (Chechen Republic of Iskeria) and the Caucasus Emirate on the war, and has not provided an edit summary about it. Dkis, if you have any reason or argument on this subject whatsoever, please post them on this talk page. You have deleted these entries, with their citations, twice within two days, and you have not made an argument for your action, not even in an edit summary. Please, either post your argument for excluding these factions on the talk page, or stop erasing them. ExOttoyuhr ( talk) 16:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Republika Srpska is only a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, so they can't say for the whole Bosnia and Herzegovina so I think we need to delete it or somehow mention that it is a statement only from Republika Srpska and not from the whole Bosnia and Herzegovina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
http://en.rian.ru/world/20080814/116039560.html . Магистер ( talk) 20:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems Ukraine's reaction has led to some domestic political intrigues. Perhaps a separate article should be created for Ukraine's reaction in light of this development.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 23:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Please don't try to insert private blogger's views like they were the mainstream views of the countries or even official views. Example [11]. Narking ( talk) 08:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to talk more about Jonas De Geer and your alleged language skills you are free to do so, but just don't do it here. Neither belongs to this article. Narking ( talk) 16:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Narking has removed the statement of the prominent Swedish writer Jonas De Geer with no single argument or source confirming that he is not prominent, thereby indulging in Argumentum ad hominem against him. He had been a reporter for the widespread magazine Folkets Nyheter in this country and I am deeply disturbed by representatives of Sweden sticking firmly to ministers' sentences and being reticent about the Russian embassy's (not him) and the foremost cultural personalities. Thereby I put here the statement proposed for inclusion in the article, which had been impeded by him, and commence a procedure of voting for its restauration, since I believe that the sooth should prevail however inconvenient it for some people is:
(for the current section only the third one imports)
http://www.mrree.gub.uy/mrree/Prensa/Comunicados/2008/053_2008.htm - Uruguayan government press release Kislorod ( talk) 04:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that SCO has announced a statement about the war, but I can't find it mentioned here. Alinor ( talk) 08:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me like the "International Organizations" group should be split into genuine international organizations (e.g. UN, NATO, CSTO) and non-governmental organizations (Amnesty, HRW &c). -- Quintucket ( talk) 21:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bkavkazcenter\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on International reaction to the Russo-Georgian War which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bkavkazcenter\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International reaction to the Russo-Georgian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International reaction to the Russo-Georgian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For all gdfl info on content then see 2008 South Ossetia War per this time and date. (Hypnosadist) 23:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suggest this be merged back into the main article. We don't have separate "International reaction" articles for everything that happens, and not for conflicts or wars. While Kosovo 1999 is a similar situation to this one (draw your own parallels, people), there is no good reason for this to be its own article, at least for now. Maybe if there is a declaration of independence (again?) that elicits an international reaction. But not right now. Balkan Fever 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1358 This should be added... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.80.212 ( talk) 22:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, the info that Israel will stop shipments to Georgia is false, Israel officials have denied that, though they stopped selling unmanned drones. Do a google search, you'll see it come up. 72.140.80.212 ( talk) 23:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Please revert this edit which removed the photo of the US president. The article is about the international reaction to the war, and the photo shows the US reaction, and the US is the most powerful and the only hyperpower on this planet (whether we like it or no!), therefore whatever the US says is of extreme importance. The photo also adds value to the article, and it also helps the reader understand the US position. NerdyNSK ( talk) 01:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Does the photo have any significance to "International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war"? No it doesn't. What photo would have had significance if it was made in South Ossetia for an example but like this it looks like any other Bush photo. Otherwise we could have this in the article too:
And we don't need it.-- Avala ( talk) 12:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The article 2008 South Ossetia War was moved to 2008 South Ossetia war and for consistency I believe International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia War should be moved to International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war (this does not mean that I agree with the name, as I would prefer 2008 Russia-Georgia War, but I propose this to keep consistency with the main article). NerdyNSK ( talk) 03:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Do the tables need to be numbered? Countries are already (mostly) listed in alphabetical order. Numbering makes it difficult to insert new entries. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 04:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Would these be fine?
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080810-153729/OFWs-in-Georgia-safe-but-ready-to-go OFWs in Georgia safe, but ready to go
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view/20080810-153785/Evacuation-plans-ready-for-Filipinos-in-Georgia Evacuation plans ready for Filipinos in Georgia
Wasn't able to find anything from a reaction from the Philippine gov't. Will look more. Ominae ( talk) 07:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
How about making a diagram? It would fit the article well. For example, there would be "lefts" and "rights" supporting either Russian or Georgian POV, with neutral bar in the middle, and few bars to each side, where extremity is shown through it's closeness to border. Colors like blue and green for sides and cyan for neutral would also improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.189.199.57 ( talk) 11:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The situation is too complex for a linear graph. For instance, some organizations might disapprove of Georgia's initial move north but also disapprove of the degree of Russia's response. Cwilsyn ( talk) 08:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to include Obama and McCain's reactions to the recent events in Georgia? They are US Government officials in some sense, and (unless something major happens) will be in charge of the US in the aftermath of this. Both have denounced Russia, though McCain was more vitriolic in his denunciations. Orville Eastland ( talk) 13:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the article should be limited to official statements. I suggest removing the Greek political parties and looking at the German section. Cwilsyn ( talk) 08:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
For better objectivity, reaction of CSTO should be also shown, cause there`s reaction of NATO. -- 193.232.9.194 ( talk) 11:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody edit the article? Don`t you want to add some objectivity? :) If you are so lazy to find sorces here`s one [ [1]]( in russian, I can translate if you like) -- 193.232.9.194 ( talk) 14:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this could serve as an update for the Red Cross position? OelnJa ( talk) 15:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh, just noted that this article is not protected, so I could have done that myself. But thanks for adding it! OelnJa ( talk) 17:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It is a voice from one of the sides in response to the reactions, so it is not "international reaction" by itself. But it has been suggested in the Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war that it may fit here better:
Russia Warns Baltics, Poland To Pay For Georgia Stance. 132.68.248.44 ( talk) 21:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not fond of watching over american elections, but it is somewhat related:
John McCain's top foreign-policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, is a leading expert on U.S.-allied Georgia -- and was a paid lobbyist for the former Soviet republic until March, in the run-up to what has become a major battle between Georgia and Russia.
Democratic rival Barack Obama's presidential campaign was quick to try to paint Mr. Scheunemann's dual roles as a conflict of interest after Sen. McCain swiftly took Georgia's side in the dispute, and cited it as evidence that Sen. McCain is "ensconced in a lobbyist culture," as Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan told reporters over the weekend.
McCain may lose some points and Obama win some. Garret Beaumain ( talk) 00:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how this is relevant to the conflict, or to the election. McCain has always been a strict critic of Russia, and it is certain that his response wouldn't have been any different either way. It will defiantly not "lose some points" in the election. 69.245.80.218 ( talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
[3] The leaders of Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia rushed to Saakashvili's defense Tuesday, traveling to Georgia and appearing together at a mass pep rally in the center of Tbilisi, the capital.
"We came to fight since our old neighbor (Russia) thinks that it can fight us," Polish President Lech Kaczynski said. "This country thinks that old times will come back, but that time is over. Everyone knows that the next one could be Ukraine, then Poland."
-- Molobo ( talk) 23:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Press releases from Latvian Ministry of Foreign affairs: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], maybe some of these are relevant to this article ~~ Xil ( talk) 12:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is a useful reference imho. It does need consistent date formats and punctuation style, as well as updating. Cwilsyn ( talk) 08:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Their is no
rational for the use of the Nato flag, (
Image:Flag_of_NATO.svg).
I think it needs to be removed as I cannot see how using it here qualifies for
Fair Use.
FFMG (
talk)
11:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Only Cuba supported Russia, not 'other countries'. Not even Belarus supported the Russian invasion. -- Molobo ( talk) 18:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth is the Polish statement so large?! I'm sure we can cut about 80% of it out so its just a line or two to match the rest of the article?? Any objections? Taifar ious1 03:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Do not clear it, please, be objective. If it is possible - add it to the page.
The new Internet site Russia-vs-Georgia have been created recently. The main goal of this site is to give all visitors do voting one of the side and comment it . The authors asserts that «Project doesn't support any of the sides. Our aim – together with visitors investigate real situation.» [2]. The abbreviation vs is striked, obviously it is the hint to understanding that «Russia is not versus Georgia». -- Korolev Alexandr ( talk) 11:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Either we should remove the "Unrecognized states and non-state entities" section altogether, or we should preserve the comments of all unrecognized states that have anything to say on this issue. The section is not titled "Unrecognized states and non-state entities that Russia approves of."
Speaking of which: I'm sure that al-Qaida has said something on the issue. Could someone add them, as well as putting the Caucasus Emirate back (and maybe adding Kosovo)? ExOttoyuhr ( talk) 14:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. Looking through the revision logs: User:Dkis also blanked the Caucasus Emirate entry -- and there as with Ichkeria, he simply blanked the entry without bothering to add an edit summary for why he was deleting information. Dkis, if there's a reason these unrecognized states aren't kosher, please post that here, but otherwise remember that unrecognized means unrecognized, and all unrecognized states belong here. Not to mention that the reaction of the Muslim rebel states is very important here -- if there's anyone who's going to escalate this war, it's them. ExOttoyuhr ( talk) 14:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Meco, the footnote for the paragraph that you edited linked to http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1833364,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics -- in which General Anatoly Nogovitsyn is reported by Interfax to threaten a nuclear strike against Poland. When a controversial claim is made and a footnote is provided to back it up, check the footnote before contravening the claim; Wikipedia has and deserves a very good reputation for reliability when citations are provided. ExOttoyuhr ( talk) 20:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Once again, User:Dkis has blanked the position statements of the ChRI (Chechen Republic of Iskeria) and the Caucasus Emirate on the war, and has not provided an edit summary about it. Dkis, if you have any reason or argument on this subject whatsoever, please post them on this talk page. You have deleted these entries, with their citations, twice within two days, and you have not made an argument for your action, not even in an edit summary. Please, either post your argument for excluding these factions on the talk page, or stop erasing them. ExOttoyuhr ( talk) 16:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Republika Srpska is only a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, so they can't say for the whole Bosnia and Herzegovina so I think we need to delete it or somehow mention that it is a statement only from Republika Srpska and not from the whole Bosnia and Herzegovina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
http://en.rian.ru/world/20080814/116039560.html . Магистер ( talk) 20:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems Ukraine's reaction has led to some domestic political intrigues. Perhaps a separate article should be created for Ukraine's reaction in light of this development.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 23:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Please don't try to insert private blogger's views like they were the mainstream views of the countries or even official views. Example [11]. Narking ( talk) 08:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to talk more about Jonas De Geer and your alleged language skills you are free to do so, but just don't do it here. Neither belongs to this article. Narking ( talk) 16:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Narking has removed the statement of the prominent Swedish writer Jonas De Geer with no single argument or source confirming that he is not prominent, thereby indulging in Argumentum ad hominem against him. He had been a reporter for the widespread magazine Folkets Nyheter in this country and I am deeply disturbed by representatives of Sweden sticking firmly to ministers' sentences and being reticent about the Russian embassy's (not him) and the foremost cultural personalities. Thereby I put here the statement proposed for inclusion in the article, which had been impeded by him, and commence a procedure of voting for its restauration, since I believe that the sooth should prevail however inconvenient it for some people is:
(for the current section only the third one imports)
http://www.mrree.gub.uy/mrree/Prensa/Comunicados/2008/053_2008.htm - Uruguayan government press release Kislorod ( talk) 04:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that SCO has announced a statement about the war, but I can't find it mentioned here. Alinor ( talk) 08:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me like the "International Organizations" group should be split into genuine international organizations (e.g. UN, NATO, CSTO) and non-governmental organizations (Amnesty, HRW &c). -- Quintucket ( talk) 21:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bkavkazcenter\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on International reaction to the Russo-Georgian War which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bkavkazcenter\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International reaction to the Russo-Georgian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International reaction to the Russo-Georgian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)