User talk:Añoranza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 You're definitely right ... 2 TfD &CfD 3 Re: page protections 4 The Opera web browser 5 About Iraq War 6 War on Terrorism 7 Iraq War 2nd Paragraph 8 Odious 9 ICC 10 Panama Deception 11 Complaint about JDoorjam 12 New block 13 Quit it. 14 Anon posted stupid messages at Administrators noticeboard and a user talk page "in my name" 15 Open Proxy 16 Stop putting unblock templates in 17 Smiles 18 Frank Wuterich 19 RFCU and the comments posted in your name 20 Propoganda article titles 20.1 Operation Iraqi Freedom 21 Re: Advice 22 Thanks 23 Stop 24 A possible compromise 25 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza 26 Zer0faults and your arbitration case 27 Blocking of RainbowSprinkles 28 "Propaganda names" 29 Operation Restore Hope 30 User notice: temporary 3RR block 30.1 Regarding reversions[10] made on July 4, 2006 (UTC) to United States Navy SEALs 31 RfAr involving Zero 32 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza

[edit] You're definitely right ...

... but I'll keep the blocking for a week, since some es: administrators are suffering blackmail and other vandalism from the Arcor network. I definitely agree with you in this measure being an overkill, but I don't know what other thing to do. Sorry --Ecemaml 08:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

How can someone blackmail you via internet? There are strange people around... Añoranza 08:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD &CfD

Hello, Añoranza. Please complete the TfD and CfD procedures for the "War on Terror" items. (See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#How to list templates for deletion and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#How to use this page.) If the proper subsections do not exist (I can't find them. A link should be in the CfD/TfD notice.), no one can make comments nor vote on whatever changes you wish to implement. Just an FYI. Hope this helps. -- PFHLai 08:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I've fixed the problems. -- PFHLai 09:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: page protections

The page protection has nothing to do with any edit war. I didn't even know there was one. It is due to ongoing vandalism by an abusive user who has created several hundred throwaway accounts with which he posts an administrator's personal information into articles. After going through the trouble of removing those edits from the page history, it would be wise to semi-protect the page for at least a while, if only to delay having to repeat the process. — May. 7, '06 [08:21] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Ah, ok. Strange what some people use their time for. Can't you block the IP range? Añoranza 08:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Opera web browser

You've asked why I prefer opera. You might be a Firefox fanatic, but I am not. I've used Opera before there was a Firefox. Firefox's font rendering looks bad on my laptop with a 16:9 monitor aspect ratio. Opera does mouse gestures, has more features by default, and is more polished than firefox in its current state. I don't hate firefox, I put it on my parents computer but Opera meets my needs better than firefox. BigE1977 21:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Iraq War

Honestly I don't think its worth your time to go through Zero's entire intro and deal with everything piece by piece. I would just revert it back to the version it was before he started this whole mess. -- Mr. Tibbs 02:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comments have been noted. Trying to find a middleground is usually better then advocating someone just discard someone elses work. Today it seems me and Anoranza came to a middleground thanks to some discussion instead of constant revert war. Diplomacy usually wins over brute tactics, you should be more open to it. --Zer0faults 16:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War on Terrorism

I didnt take part in the debate to delete the category war on terrorism. I think the debate was politically motivated. The term is a policy of the current administration of the US govenrement that has had both negative and positive consequences. If you dont like the consequencesyou should add that to the discussion rather than deleting the category which will be usefuil for future research into the effectiveness of hte War on Terror.Mrdthree 02:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It was decided the category should be deleted. You can challenge that decision but you cannot restart the category against consensus. It generally does not help to accuse others of hidden agendas. Añoranza 10:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq War 2nd Paragraph

TO keep things civil I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article in question Talk:Iraq_War#Anoranza_Please_Read. If you can respond so we can make sure you no longer feel like your information is left out I think it would contribute greatly to the 2nd paragraph. Thank you --Zer0faults 15:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are happy with the intro as it stands, I am as well. Nice to finally reach a concensus as its mainly your edits. Cheers for diplomacy --Zer0faults 16:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The war is most notable for

1. a UN Security Council veto power lying to the Council
2. spying on other members
3. breaking the UN Charter with a war of aggression
4. in spite of the biggest ever worldwide protests
5. admitting that as holder of the biggest arsenal of WMD in the world WMD were used as the primary claimed reason just to appease the others
6. inspiring the most widespread terrorism ever.

This should be reflected in the intro. Añoranza 16:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Replied in appropriate location. All further replies will be there. --Zer0faults 16:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odious

Thought you might want to see this. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Añoranza 09:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: Zer0faults abused checkuser Añoranza 12:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ICC

Please could you comment about your edit on the International Criminal Court page, as per my talk page note. Thanks AndrewRT 00:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panama Deception

Fixed your link on the above page, when using IMDB tag, you do not put the tt from the beginning of the title id. For example, your movie was "tt0105089", you remove the "tt" and are left with "0105089" as your ID. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint about JDoorjam

You have been temporarily blocked for violating the three-revert rule at the article about Dick Cheney. After the block expires, please refrain from engaging in edit warring. I recommend you use the talk pages of articles you are editing if the edits are contentious. JDoorjam Talk 01:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) First of all, a warning is in place before a block, second, you should learn to count before blocking others, third, it is obscene to block others you are in a conflict with. Añoranza 02:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that was only three. I'll unblock you momentarily. With that said, clearly your campaign of systematically changing military campaign names is largely contested by other editors. Use the talk pages and build consensus before continuing in this vein, or I'll block you again for disruption. JDoorjam Talk 02:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am still blocked: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Añoranza". The reason given for Añoranza's block is: "3RR". Your IP address is 88.73.92.206.

And thanks for saying sorry with a threat. Your behaviour is unacceptable. Añoranza 02:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove warnings from your talk page. I have struck through the portion to which you object. JDoorjam Talk 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your behaviour is unacceptable. Añoranza 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New block

Attacking other user's intelligence is a personal attack and you will serve out your block. Do not replace the unblock template. If you do so, your page may be protected as well. Thank you. Sasquatch t|c 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What happened? =) Haizum 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As there is absolutely no basis for my block, just two erroneous accusations, threatening me is out of place. Calling someone an "intolerable troll" is a personal attack itself, coming from the admin who blocked me. Añoranza 10:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of them calling you that. Show it to me and I'll gladly warn the admin about that. Sasquatch t|c 22:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Intolerable troll" Please also note that two anon IPs posted "in my name" and that my current block was done because the admin who had personally attacked me wrongly assumed that I had evaded his wrong block. Please strike out the two comments that were posted "in my name" in order to defame me, block the IPs and bring this to the administrators' noticeboard. Añoranza 22:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quit it.

Don't you realize? Every time you comment from your IP, your block gets automatically reset. Admins aren't involved in that. Just calm down and walk away. Come back in a week once you've thought things through. Because you know what? If I were an admin I'd have blocked you myself. Personal attacks are not tolerated. Just because an admin made a mistake in blocking you for 3RR doesn't give you the right to insult them. He tried to fix things. I've seen a lot of admins here who wouldn't even listen to your protestations that you hadn't violated 3RR. He listened and unblocked you, and then you insulted him. So come back in a week and consider this a lesson learned, ok? Kasreyn 09:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It was not me who used the IPs, see below. Añoranza 10:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon posted stupid messages at Administrators noticeboard and a user talk page "in my name"

[1] and at Mr. Tibbs' user talk page. As can be easily verified, the IP is from another country, http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl gives:

OrgName: Choice One Communications Inc

OrgID: CHOC

Address: 100 Chestnut St.

City: Rochester

StateProv: NY

PostalCode: 14609

Country: US

As posting in other users' name in order to defame them is a severe violation of wikipedia policy the IP should be blocked indefinitely. Sorry if this is a wrong suspicion, but as few people will have noticed my case I would like to know if this was user Zer0faults who is from New York as well, as he writes on his page.

Furthermore, as I have done nothing wrong and no evidence of any wrongdoing has been presented, I protest my block. A cynic remark about someone who abused his admin powers in no way justifies a one week block. The user blocked in spite of a conflict of interest and in spite of the fact that I had not violated the rule as he claimed. He did not apologize and instead threatened me and invited others to block me. Añoranza 10:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There even is a second vandal posting "in my name". That one had even posted "in my support" revealing he was someone else at other pages: "I support Añoranza and the fight against Imperialist propaganda."

Here he posted "in my name"

http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl in this case gives

OrgName: ThePlanet.com Internet Services, Inc.

OrgID: TPCM

Address: 1333 North Stemmons Freeway

Address: Suite 110

City: Dallas

StateProv: TX

PostalCode: 75207

Country: US

Thanks to Sasquatch for blocking this IP.

As this was given as the reason for my block [2] I protest it. I also protest the admin not checking who posts at his page, although I admit I would not have thought of the possibility someone doing something that stupid either.

• Unfortunately you let yourself get carried away by your enthousiasm. However, your anonymous adversary is remarkably using the same ISP (Choice One Communications Inc and ThePlanet.com Internet Services, Inc) as suspected puppets of Rex.User talk:70.84.56.166user:216.22.26.46[3] Let's call it coincidence, just as the eery similarity in behaviour between Zero and Rex, and the odd choice of names Neutral arbiter (talk • contribs) and Zer0faults (talk • contribs). You could look into that some more.221.146.211.193 10:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Tibbs actually lives in New York if you were unaware. OOL-CPE-WPGRNY-69-121-132-0-22. The WPGRNY is the designation for his area. He states the IP on his talk page. [4]. That links back to "Optimum Online (Cablevision Systems)" --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, so what? The IP he used is obviously unrelated to the two that posted "in my name". Sorry if my accusation against you is wrong, it is just that it is obvious a user did this who new the case well, and the only other one I could think of it Haizum. I have not had similar trouble with him as I had with you. Añoranza 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Accusing people of acts is not appropriate. I am getting tired of the sockpuppet accusation as well as a RFCU has already proved me innocent. Millions of people live in NYC and I edit when at work from a company that has over 3,000 employees in just the 2 blocks I work in. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

--Bhadani 14:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, a bit difficult to post smileys at other users' talk pages when blocked erroneously. You could do me a favour by striking out the anon postings "in my name" listed above and point this out at the Administrators' noticeboard. Añoranza 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open Proxy

The above IP was actually an open proxy as can be seen by the say it adds slashes to apostrophes. It has been blocked indefinetely but it still could be you and I see no evidence that sways me too much to the contrary. Sasquatch t|c 22:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, next time I post abusive stuff with an open proxy "in your name" and than ask some admin to block you. This is ridiculous. You really think I am stupid enough to write "You can\'t stop me, I will edit without logging in.""? Furthermore, it was two IPs. As this is a severe case, I ask for a checkuser this is possible with one of the IPs. You cannot keep up a block for a "violation" you cannot prove. Añoranza 22:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will restore the original block. Sasquatch t|c 22:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The original block had already been without any foundation, you cannot be serious. Show me anything wrong I had done other than complaining about an admin who had blocked me for an erroneous counting of a 3RR violation in a case where he had a conflict of interest. He threatened me instead of apologizing, and invited others to block me because he regarded me as invicil. Añoranza 22:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've told you before insulting other's users intelligence is uncivil. Frankly, I agree with the blocks and NSLE would not have blocked you if he had not agreed. And threatening to block you for 3RR is well within policy... it's called a warning. Sasquatch t|c 22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Statements like "you cannot be serious to keep this up" only hurt your cause. The admin stated the person editied from a proxy so what you are asking for cannot be proved in a way. Just relax Mr. Tibbs certified your RfC. At least stop making those kinds of remarks to admins. While you did start a RfC against me, I do not want to see you perm banned or something over this whole thing. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if you pretend not to see that this is a case where a wikipedian is obviously a victim of a particularly evil sort of mud-throwing you must give the benefit of the doubt. There is absolutely no reason to even discuss a permanent block of someone who has not done anything wrong. Añoranza 22:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies I am not accusing you of anything, I am simply saying I do not want to see you get into further trouble with the admins. While we clash and you have filed a RfC against me, its not my wish to see you get into more trouble over the remarks you make. That is all. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As you claim to come here for good purposes - which surprises me after you refused to discuss at your own talk page - please strike out the posts that were done by anons "in my name" and point this out at the administrators' noticeboard. Would be a great gesture. Añoranza 22:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not, I am just offering advice. I will however leave a message on Mr. Tibbs or Nescio's talk pages stating you would like one of them to do it. I feel that is a good middleground that doesn't involve me editing things for you, or on your part. Is this ok with you? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would do this even for my worst enemy, and I think it should be taken for granted that anyone should do this for any other wikipedian. It is not "editing for me", it is just stopping vandals throwing mud at someone. Sorry, but I find this shameful of you. Añoranza 22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that information has been responded to and is the basis of accusations apparently, so I will not edit it and change it from its original state, its almost misleading to do so, in my opinion at least. I am sorry you find it shameful, I offered you help, help I had no need to even offer considering the RfC etc. I would like to point out that even though we have argued, I have before met you in the middle like on the Iraq War article, and even fixed your bad edit on that Panama article then explained how to use the tag. But as I said, I was just offering advice, I am sorry you feel the way you do. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also no proof it is a vandal, another reason why I will not change the comments. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, they were blocked, so others already confirmed they were vandals. Second, there are only two possibilities. Either it was me, than I was a vandal. Or it was someone else pretending to be me to ensure I stay blocked. That would be the worst vandalism I have heard of up to now. So in any way, it was vandalism and needs to be pointed out. Añoranza 22:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop putting unblock templates in

This is your last warning. If you restore the unblock template one more time, I will protect your talk page. I suggest you just serve your time and think of contructive things you can do once you come back. Thanks. Sasquatch t|c 22:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Give me any evidence of any wrongdoing and I stop. You cannot just block me without any basis. And please strike out the posts "in my name" and point the violation out at the administrators' noticeboard. Añoranza 22:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, i'll strike that out and point out it was an open proxy. As for reasoning, see my response above to your question that you have asked repeatedly. Sasquatch t|c 22:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A one week block for one "incivility" that had a concrete reason and happened after someone else was very incivil to me and abused admin powers is a severe case of double standards and biased action. I find the actions of you, NSLE who personally attacked me, and JDoorjam who blocked me erroneously and threatened me instead of apologizing unacceptable. Thank you anyway for your comment to NSLE and blocking the IP 70.87.34.82. Please also block the other one, 216.153.214.89 Thanks also for striking out their comments "in my name" when you do so. Añoranza 22:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You know what, it was an honest mistake by JDoorjam and he was perfectly within his power to warn you not to edit war. Any admin would have done the same. Edit warring is not tolerated. As for incivility, 1 week might be longer than what I personally would have preferred but considering your continuing uncooperative attitude, I see no reason to reconsider. I also warned NSLE about future use inflammatory comments. I'm a rational (and pretty fair) person. But if you just keep saying the same rhetoric of "I didn't do anything!" and "They're abusing admin powers" over and over, I again am less inclined to reconsider any blocks. Just take some time off, then come back in a week and keep cool. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 23:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone does an honest mistake, there is no reason not to apologize. I would not have complained about a warning if it had gone to the other party, too - just look at the zillion of reverts by Zer0faults. In this case, the admin who blocked me did not warn but blocked right away in a case where he was involved himself, and again, instead of apologizing he threatened me and invited others to block me. This is by far more incivil than making one ironic comment in response to an abuse of admin power. You however choose to block only me and to restore a completely unbased block justification. I agree to differ with you about the incivility, but the other reasons are without any basis. Asking others to calm down for a week is not really helpful if you force them to stay away for a week under such dubious pretenses. Please strike out all comments that were made by IPs "in my name" and block the second one, too. Añoranza 23:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think saying that he invited others to block you is a bit of a stretch. Either way, you brought this upon yourself. You do realise you shouldn't have insulted users intelligence right? Again, nobody has abused any admin power thus far and it would be wise of you to stop claiming that over and over. JDoorjam unblocked you as soon as he found out he had made a mistake. How do you respond? You call him stupid. And as for calming down, how else do you suggest we do it? You know what, don't edit this page for 48 hours. Come back, and then just say that you will never insult other users again, and I'll reduce your block. Prove that you can at least be reasoned with. Otherwise, I think I'll just sit it out. Sasquatch t|c 01:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

He explicitly invited others to block me: [5] I find your one week block of me for one single sarcastic comment after an admin blocked me erroneously for an alleged 3RR where he had a conflict of interest unacceptable. If you think you should lecture others, do not use double standards. Añoranza 11:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smiles

Please continue smiling. I found your smiles really enchanting! --Bhadani 12:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Wuterich

I only included Wuterich's age because I could not find the birth date, it's better than no info. Joshdboz 14:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, hopefully we find the birth year. Añoranza 14:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFCU and the comments posted in your name

There are a number of very odd things happening around fringes of the Rex/Merecat story, and I certainly don't understand them all. One is Thewolfstar, who considered Merecat a friend and ally; she has been banned but has created a number of sock puppets and is now using open proxies to post comments. (Misconfigured proxies often leave extra backslashes after apostrophes, you can see this in some of the edits of 70.87.34.82 (talk • contribs) ). The use of all caps and the language of the last post is a characteristic of Thewolfstar when she is pissed off. There are a number of posts about Thewolfstar on WP:ANI in the recent archives and the active page; here is a post where she is caught using another open proxy at The Planet [6].

Of course, one strange thing about the Merecat situation is how did Thewolfstar suddenly find all these open proxy servers at Merecat's old ISP? It is a coincidence or did he set something up for her? (Thewolfstar is definitely a real person, a middle-aged lady in upstate NY with an 18 year old son who also edits; several admins have spoken on the phone with her).

Another strange thing is why is there an anonymous user posting from a range of Koren IP numbers insisting Zer0faults is a Merecat sock. That's your correspondent above, 221.146.211.193. At this point, Zer0faults has been checked 3 times and no evidence has appeared, so I think continuing to make a big deal of it would be counterproductive. (I personally don't put a lot of credibility behind anonymous accusations leveled at registered users.) I have no idea who used that ChoiceOne account to forge your sig; it doesn't seem to be an open proxy. The problem is that if it is a dynamic IP number (that is, assigned to different users daily or even hourly at random) there might be multiple established users who have used that IP in the last month and to disclose them all (and presumably round them up for questioning) would be a gross violation of their privacy, not to be undertaken except in case of serious, prolonged policy violations. (Of course the incident was serious to you, but there were only 2 edits on one day, so not serious enough to violate multiple users privacy.) Hope this helps. Thatcher131 00:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks a lot. There are really strange people around. From a wikipedian of another language version I even got emailed once in protest of valid orthography, and it turned out he had dedicated all of his time to it and even started an association for it. He had been banned for repeated obstruction and then started to email all users he found. And then, well, just look at the top of this page... Añoranza 00:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propoganda article titles

I agree in principle with the need to call articles by names that are international recognisable and do not embed POV into the title, however your commit messages make no mention of a policy, and can be seen as a reduction of information (see Operation Iraqi Freedom), so it appeared that you were acting as a one man army. I apologise if any commit comments offended.

You obviously believe in this strongly ... why join WikiProject-Military history to tackle the problem with a diplomatic approach and the assistance of others. They have rough guidelines on article names, but currently they do no have a list of articles that dont follow this guideline. Creating such a list as part of that project will allow a systematic improvement to take place.

Also, why not start by explaining on Military operation how these code names are arrived at, and provide examples. It would be good to see examples from various countries and US administrations, and thus back up the propoganda argument you make. Jayvdb 00:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Iraqi Freedom

You have made a number of link changes from Operation Iraqi Freedom to the Iraq war. While this change achieves the goal of removing the propoganda from the linking article, it also reduces the amount of information (there were two major operations in Iraq) . Also, if there is another Iraqi war, the link will need to be updated again to 2003_invasion_of_Iraq. Jayvdb 00:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I avoid redirects, second, I avoid propaganda terms wherever possible. Please note that others agree with this: User_talk:Looper5920#Re:_Advice User_talk:SpinyNorman#Thank_you. Should a further war in Iraq start - I hope not - I am sure society will find a new name for it and wikipedia can choose it as that article's title. Añoranza 00:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The user is below telling you not to edit enmasse without discussing ... that is what people are asking you to do. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with nothing you have said and please do not use my name for furthering any of your crusades.--Looper5920 01:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Looper5920, the editor who replied to your request for advice agreed with me. Please remain civil in the future and do not talk down on others with derogatory words like "crusades". You have been warned for a personal attack already.

Zer0faults, I avoid redirects en masse and enforce NPOV, both is enforcing established policies. If you want to challenge them, do so where appropriate. Añoranza 01:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the redirects, in some articles you created more redirects by using a lower case "w" for War, do you realize that? Your edits were not as detailed as you perhaps thought they were, you also could have accomplished the same by using the | symbol in the wikilinks. Furthermore you created inconsistencies when a whole paragraph refers to operation names, then you change (2) of the (8). --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Instead of redirects you prefer propaganda names that link to the articles, I know. It violates NPOV. And, yes, I also know your tactics of finding pretexts for reverting. There is no need to keep propagandistic operation names, not even if they come in groups. Añoranza 01:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

To reflect on "Operation Just Cause", you were using "Invasion of Panama" as the new article name. However the eventual name was "United States invasion of Panama". If this had of been discussed before changes were made, lots of unnecessary edits and wasted time would have been avoided. That is why I suggested that this improvement to article titles is conducted as a project.

Please visit Iraq War and 2003 invasion of Iraq -- they are separate articles. Notice that the latter article is what should have been the replacement for Operation Iraqi Freedom. All of the articles where you have replaced Operation Iraqi Freedom with Iraq War are now less informative than they were previously, and someone now needs to go back and fix them all. We need to discuss these changes first to be sure the best possible changes are being made, and so that small mistakes dont become really large one. Jayvdb 02:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not moved any article for more than a week (by the way, I got blocked for a week for telling an admin who was in a conflict of interest and had blocked me for a 3RR violation that was none that he should learn to count to high numbers). Operation Iraqi Freedom redirects to Iraq War. I fixed redirects. If the redirect is wrong, that is not my fault. Añoranza 02:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I didnt mention articles being moved. I am talking about the edits to other articles.

Also, I am not concerned about the redirects. Previously an article included the text Operation Iraqi Freedom (who cares where it redirected to -- imagine for a minute the article has been printed out), which meant the reader knew precisely which military operation the article referred to. When you change this to Iraqi war , that infomation is lost, and the reader needs to dig around to figure this out. You have been blinded by the importance of your project, and as a result are making small mistakes which is really annoying. To make matters worse, you have made the same tiny mistake on lots of articles.

To switch into a positive mode, stop making changes. Create a page on your user page and propose changes. Everyone involved in this discussion will be able to provide constructive criticism so that the right changes are made. Jayvdb 02:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I repeat that all I did was to avoid redirects, this is completely ok, and if you think operation iraqi freedom should not redirect to iraq war, you shall make that proposal. Añoranza 02:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In the process of changing the redirects, the text in the articles was modified, and often the resulting text was less than ideal in my opinion. Jayvdb 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You might be right, I do not know. Please correct where the invasion should have been linked to instead of the war, but do not use propaganda terms where they can be avoided. Añoranza 03:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Advice

The issue isn't really your changes so much as your methods for making them; you really should be discussing things—preferrably as general guidelines—first, and making edits to hundreds of pages second. Doing it the other way tends to be counterproductive at best (the ArbCom made a very insightful ruling in one case that "[he was] arguably completely technically correct — but he interacted so negatively with others that he actually convinced people he was not") and blows up into a repeat of the Danzig/Gdansk or AD/CE bloodbaths at worst. Kirill Lokshin 00:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding redirects and using a neutral point of view are well established policies. I do not know what you mean with "Danzig/Gdansk" or "AD/CE" but I am happy to discuss anything were I can improve my editing. On the other hand, I am very concerned about Zer0faults who refuses to do so. Añoranza 00:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There were huge fights about whether the term Danzig or Gdansk should be used for the city, and whether AD or CE should be used for dates; both sides edit-warred to their version (because was "more" neutral) to the point that people started getting banned, and the issue still hasn't been resolved.

There's no ruling, in general, that operation names are inherently problematic; I think it would be best to come up with a general guideline on using them—in text and otherwise—before running around making massive changes. Kirill Lokshin 01:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not say they are inherently problematic. Most are propagandistic, not neutral, can be replaced, and consensus was to avoid them, so I avoid redirects. "Just Cause", "Iraqi Freedom", "Peace for Galilea" - Orwellian. Añoranza 01:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Which makes sense, but raises the question of why you're also going after the ones that aren't propagandistic in any meaningful sense. "Desert Storm", for example, or "Golden Pheasant"; what's so non-neutral, even, about these? They're more whimsical than propagandistic. Kirill Lokshin 01:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know this as well. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Concensus? Where. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Zer0faults, why do you think the articles are titled Invasion of Grenada, United States invasion of Panama, 1982 Lebanon War and Iraq War and not as I enumerated above? Añoranza 01:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the names of articles are held to a more rigorous standard of neutrality than the mere use of certain words within a larger text? Kirill Lokshin 01:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should that be? Neutrality is a basic principle that should not be given up in any case. Añoranza 01:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Desert Storm" and "Golden Pheasant" are less propagandistic - I do not even recall to have protested the first one. However, referring to the powers of nature and one of the most expensive metals is euphemist when actually labelling a military attack. Furthermore, the sheer fact that the names were chosen by one side and not used by the other shows they are not neutral. Añoranza 01:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. This manner of conversation is rather impolite, at best.

To your more substantial point: the fact that they're euphemisms does not automatically disqualify them from meeting the requirements of NPOV (which is not necessarily "true" neutrality); we need mereley determine whether reputable outside sources have a consensus on which term(s) may be used. (Similarly, we use "Holocaust" rather than "German mass genocide", because that is the generally accepted term. Same thing with "Holy Roman Empire".) Kirill Lokshin 01:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I remove provocative rhetorical questions by User:Zer0faults as I see no intent to fruitfully discuss and I find his hobby of posting endless innuendo everywhere obstructive. Sorry if this seems impolite, but I have had enough of this.

The fact that we use holocaust as an article title shows we regard it as sufficiently neutral. The fact that we do not have "Operation Just Cause" and the other propaganda names I listed as article titles shows we do not find them neutral. Añoranza 01:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, not quite; all it shows is that we find that particular title to be the best one for the article. It says nothing at all about whether other titles for the same topic may or may not be sufficiently neutral; there are plenty of reasons other than neutrality for choosing an article title.

Which brings us back to my original point. There is no current policy that operational names are inherently inappropriate, so comprehensive changes away from them—particularly in the cases listed above, where there isn't even a propagandistic bent to the names—should not be undertaken in the manner of a blind edit war. If you'd like to avoid them even in cases where the consensus is that they pass the NPOV requirement, please start a general discussion (here would be the most obvious place) about a guideline; but please don't just run roughshod over articles making changes that everyone but yourself seems to disagree with. Kirill Lokshin 01:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I already answered parts of this. The very fact that one side chose the term shows it is not neutral. "Operation Just Cause" was moved exactly because consensus was that I am right to find it not neutral. As I have focussed on cases where the propagandistic character of the operation name is striking and there has not been a single case presented where consensus found an operational name neutral I do not see in how far your comment is helpful. Añoranza 01:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

History is written after the fact; just because one side chose the name (which tends to be true of a great many things, actually) doesn't mean it cannot be accepted as a suitable—or even the dominant—way of referring to something.

More concretely, though, I had this in mind. There is nothing "striking" about Operation Desert Storm, hence my request that you discuss the issue first (or just, you know, don't change the ones that aren't really propaganda). Kirill Lokshin 02:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I told you why I do not think it is appropriate. Please show me a case where an operation name after WWII became accepted and neutral standard. Añoranza 02:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Operation Arc Light, perhaps? (Many other examples exist which are so small and obscure that they simply don't have any names besides the operational one. And why the WWII cutoff point, incidentally? The US forces, at least, continued to use meaningless names for combat operations well into the Korean War.) Kirill Lokshin 02:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As very few people will have heard of that operation you cannot say that the name became accepted and neutral standard. Neutral observers would not call it Arc Light but something like "storing of xyz weapons at Guam". Note that "Light" for a weapon is euphemist. As I wrote, the fact that a name appears to be meaningless does not mean it is neutral. If it was chosen by one side and is not used by the other side it is not neutral. WWII is kind of an exception as there is no other side does not exist any longer. However, if an operation that consisted of a war crime had been labelled something like enduring freedom/just cause/infinite justice, etc. it should not be moved either. Añoranza 02:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Being chosen by one side does not automatically make the term unacceptable; neither does being euphemistic. Is there any reputable source that actually disputes the use of the term? (And plenty of "sides" in conflicts since WWII don't exist anymore, so I don't see how that would be a convincing argument.) Kirill Lokshin 02:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Being chosen by one side and not used by the other makes it not neutral. While the Nazi regime and its Allies vanished and hardly anyone feels sorry about it even in Germany, Italy or Japan, many people accuse the US and Israel of breaking international rules in Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, and Iraq. Añoranza 02:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

But that has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is not Wikipedia's role to judge whether actions were right or wrong, or whether anyone should feel sorry for the defeated. We merely report what others have written on the topic; and we should therefore use the same terminology outside sources do, regardless of who was involved in the fighting. Kirill Lokshin 02:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is not our role to judge. However, if we know that many people go as far as calling invasions "wars of aggression", "imperialism" or whatever, we know that using propaganda terms chosen by the government of one party are not neutral. Añoranza 02:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

But then why the distinction between WWII and the Gulf War? Kirill Lokshin 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

While I personally think the Gulf War was justified, many others do not. There is evidence of a lot of wrongdoing, ever heard of Nurse Nayirah? Añoranza 03:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people thought WWII wasn't justified either; I'm asking you for an argument that doesn't depend on some sort of implicit valuation of the objectors to the Gulf War above the objectors to WWII. Kirill Lokshin 03:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Who would honestly say stopping the most massive genocide of all times would not be justified? As I showed, there are valid concerns about the Gulf War. Añoranza 01:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to arrive so late in discussion, but some of the articles I have recently worked on have been involved in this quite extensive edit war. If there has been an exhaustive discussion and consensus reached already, please point me in that direction. Otherwise, I think you (Añoranza) need to calm down a bit. I completely understand that military operations are given codenames that reflect a bias, but that is the official name regardless. If an article is discussing the operation specifically, not just in general terms, it is probably informative to the reader to know its official name; not doing so would be a form of politically-correct self-censorship. Again, please point me in the right direction if there has been a full discussion about this, but all I've seen is nothing but edit after revert after edit between Añoranza and Zer0faults. My concern has been that many well written articles have been caught in the cross hairs. Joshdboz 02:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to what you write about articles discussing the operation specifically, where it is probably informative to the reader to know its official name, and I have already written so. However, there are very few such articles. In most articles, the propaganda names can be removed without losing anything. The reader interested in operation names can still find them in the articles he is directed to. Furthermore, I have actively participated in the discussion of this, my request to rename "operation just cause" met consensus, and if Zer0faults reverts avoided redirects and NPOV I cannot help him. Añoranza 02:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please deal with other contributions in a polite and constructive manner. Rude behavior is discouraged by Wikipedia policies. See Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you. This includes calling harmless comments "obstructive" or "personal attacks". It also includes posting unenforceable NPA warnings on other people's talk pages. Thanks! Haizum 03:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comments were incivil, incited not to assume good faith and thus obstructive: [7] [8] Añoranza 03:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.

Please do not clasify others in negative terms, stating things like "well known for the trouble he starts" is disruptive. [9] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks.

You are not entitled to use such warnings without evidence. You are well known for causing trouble, cf. your RFC, and your dozens of cases at the administrator's noticeboard. Starting with warning number 3 is ridiculous. You failed to show where I did not assume good faith. I will remove the warnings unless others agree with you. Añoranza 04:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My apology, I meant 2, as 1 was when you removed it in the first place. Its been corrected. Also my link is provided as evidence, please do not remove NPA tags. If you want to put these for petty issues, then they will put on your page for the same. As while I was offended by numerous things you said, I never felt an offical warning was warranted, but it seems you place these tags on the whim and so I do not want to be accused of never warning anyone first. Also a concensus is not required for NPA tags, if you feel that they are, then Hazium surely can remove his if someone does not post in agreement shortly, correct? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 04:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Haizum's case has been taken to ANI as he had already vandalized my page before and his repeated comments, unlike mine, obviously were indeed personal attacks and he specifically told others not to assume good faith with me. You failed to present evidence where I did not assume good faith, and a personal attack does not double when a false allegation is removed. Añoranza 04:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I provided my evidence, and nowhere does it say a concensus needs to be reached, also I could easily contend you vandalized my page if that is what your threshold for vandalism is. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 04:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of threatening users and placing NPA tags, you will take a discussion here seriously and allow people to comment here and listen to suggestions. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 04:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you look above and see that I enjoy fruitful debates and just cannot stand obstructive users? Añoranza 04:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am tired of this, remove all the NPA tags if you want, the point has been made repeatedly, I will bring this issue up again if you want to accuse others of removing tags you place on their page. Furthermore I think you should talk to the admin above and maybe you can see the other sides point of view, or maybe talk to the editors above that are telling you mass edits are not appropriate, or maybe just make a post on the military page as reccomended and just get a policy put in place. Good night Anoranza I will see you on the RfC talk page Monday as I think this warrants another day cool off between us. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 04:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As you may have noted, others are able to fruitfully and civilly discuss things here. Añoranza 04:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you find the need to respond to me rudely after trying to defuse this whole situation? I am trying to put an end to this and let it all go, yet you make comments like that, almost as if you want me to respond in a hostile way. I don't think you like the conflict, so I don't understand your need to make comments like that. What I noticed above is the admin reccomended you bring it up at WP:MILHIST and you just ignore it. So while you may be "civil" to some users, you are also dismissive. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 04:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have told you repeatedly what I do not like about your attitude. Please think about it. May there be a reasons I am not the only one you are in conflicts with? Añoranza 04:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You and Mr. Tibbs it seems. Do you realize noone else has made a post on the RfC but you two? Whatever, I am going to sleep, I hope monday we can return to the RfC talk page and continue to hopefully find a middle ground. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 04:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice you have various cases of rever wars and conflicts at ANI apart from the RFC hardly anyone will notice? Añoranza 04:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am inclined to agree with you that operation names are not only biased but should be used sparingly. But if you want to change nearly every reference in wikipedia, you should definitely draw up a set of guidlines to follow yourself and for future editors. If it is agreed upon, then you won't have to worry about people reverting all of your edits. For instance:

• Operation codenames should only be used when:
  • the specific military action is being discussed from a military perspective
  • the article is describing a person or unit that participated in specific operations
• Codenames should not be used when:
  • the action is being discussed in general terms
  • a neutral name for the action would be more descriptive than an unneutral codename
  • when there is doubt as to how to refer to the operation Joshdboz 11:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda names should not be used where avoidable. It does not depend on whether persons or units participated in specific operations. If the specific operation name is needed for a specific reason it can stay, if only the conflict is referred to a neutral name is appropriate. Añoranza 21:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please participate in the discussion on WP:MILHIST if you feel otherwise. They are currently debating the policy, your 02. cents would be welcomed. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I see what I supported even is an established policy: Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). Añoranza 21:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the entire thing, while not appropriate for titles, unless its the most common name, they are appropriate for article space. IF you disagree with this then state it there. They will probably explain the policy to your further. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mt apologies, I did not point you to the talk page. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Using_operational_names --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no disagreement with any of what I did or support. Añoranza 21:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not a discussion about you, so there is no disagreement with you. However the policy states operation names are permitted in article space, and if they are there should be footnoted unless the link points to the appropriate location. Now that your "redirects" have been fixed, the issue left is if the terms should be in the articles. You can see from the discussion that they are in fact ok to be in the articles. Like I said though, you may want to post there if you need further explanation of this, or feel they are wrong. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As I already wrote, I see no disagreement with any of what I suggest, so I see no need to discuss anything. Propaganda names should be avoided unless the specific propaganda is the topic, this is wikipedia policy, and now please leave it. Añoranza 21:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the smile. I wish you a peaceful and constructive wikilife. --Bhadani 14:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop

Stay away from my talkpage, I'm not interested in your comments anymore than you are interested in mine, I know mine will be deleted from here, just as you know your's will be deleted from mine. So let's just save each other the effort and stay away from each other's pages. ← ΣcoPhreek 03:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC) No discussion, compromise, or understanding can come from this stupid idea. I was just frustrated. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 04:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A possible compromise

I am more than willing to try and work out a compromise to the situation. How about this as a compromise? For me it keeps the operational name in place without causing a redirect plus for others it acknowledges the bias and propaganda aspect of operational names.← ΣcoPhreek

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zer0faults and your arbitration case

Thanks for the courtesy of letting me know that you used my edit in your arbitration case. For what it's worth, I have no problems with you using it. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking of RainbowSprinkles

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bugman94 should get you started on the reason.

The disruption was abuse of the {{helpme}} template, something that blocking can't prevent (hence the page protection). If you need to leave an important note on the talk page let me know.

I can give you a fuller explanation should you like it, just give me a buzz :-) --Commander Keane 03:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Propaganda names"

Añoranza, stop removing names of operations which you deem to be "propaganda" from articles without discussing the matter on the talk pages of the respective articles. You've been told about this before. Such action is disruptive, and future such edits without discussion will result in a temporary block. JDoorjam Talk 04:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what you are referring to now. There are a number of pages where it was consensus to move them from the propaganda title and in cases where it is obvious the link should not be a redirect I fix that. Añoranza 04:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Man am I getting good at jumping the gun with you and looking like a jack-ass. Not sure why. Perhaps the tilde makes me dizzy. The issue is more complicated than I thought at first look; I apologize for the harshly worded warning. JDoorjam Talk 04:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Other people have called me other names (rabid anti-American, ass-clown...) Añoranza 04:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Restore Hope

Regarding (rvv, a POV-tag stays until consensus is to remove it. If consensus was there is POV you would just change the POV and never need such tags)... you're right, I didn't think of it that way, thanks for clarifying. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 04:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Añoranza 05:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

Thank you for posting this information, William M. Connolley. Haizum 16:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr involving Zero

Apparently mediation does not improve the current conflict I have with this user. Since I am at my wits end I have filed a case at ArbCom. This is to notify you should you wish to comment there. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarise, Añoranza is banned for one week and the principals in this matter are encouraged to enter into good faith negotiations regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames for which there are neutral alternative names in common use.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)