User talk:Freepsbane
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Also, I believe it is against copyright to have copyrighted images (such as you have) on your user page. Happy to help though and if you have any questions feel free to ask me. --WillMak050389 03:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Al-qaim-1-.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Al-qaim-1-.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] admin aid needed
user- 88.155.198.100 has removed several information sections apparently out of personal reasons he has ignored requests for talkpage usage and broken the 3RR rule. the majority of his removals have been under the casualty section of the Battle of Bint Jbeil. where he removes the more recent casualty counts provided by msn cnn ny times (as recent as aug-2) and replaced them with much older information from websites, and insists that the newer cnn sources are "BULLSHIT" with out giving details. as a inexperienced editor I need some sort of admin help with this. his frequent removals have brought aditions to the page down to a halt.--68.211.220.109 00:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#General
[edit] Flayer blocked
Due to your excellently reported 3RR violation report, I blocked Flayer for three days, effective from 04:47 UTC 6 August 2006. If he causes any more trouble after the block expires, let me know and I will issue lengthier blocks. Also, because you filed such a nice report, I officially declare that you are no longer a nOOb. Welcome to Wikipedia. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
*Salutes* Thank You Sir.--Freepsbane 12:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tactical Victory
What is your rationale for removing the "Israeli Tactical victory"? A tactical victory is defined as a "a success in battle without substantive or long-lasting gain." They were not beat back by Hezbollah and did gain territory on the battlefield, this isnt my opinion, its a fact. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Don’t be so 2demesional
defense in depth tactics Hezbollah used for the battle all but preclude the use of territory as a barometer for victory. The fact is tactically neither force defeated the other and the attack itself seemed to stall. Hence the Stalemate aspect.Freepsbane 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC) When dealing with Asymmetric warfare it is unwise to use the same judgment scale as with set-piece battles, something known in military science. In that senario for determining the tactical victor you use a combination of body counts and the effectiveness(Intactness) of both fighting forces by the end of the engagement.Freepsbane 14:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
At any rate I don't appreciate you coming here to snap at me. I merely reverted an edit that seemed to be misinformed. Let’s continue this discussion in the article's talk page rather than mine.Freepsbane 15:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank You
From what I've heard he converted the tachi from a cavalry sword into the modern katana by shortening it and moving the curvature from near the hilt (kushizori) to nearer the center of the blade (torizori). If you compare the pictures of a tachi and a katana, you'll find the curvature on a tachi is more pronounced. Dessydes 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You are completely correct in the above statement; besides converting the tachi design into the katana Masamune also perfected the tempering process.Freepsbane 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you think I should edit the article or leave it to someone else? I hate starting edit wars. Once again, thanks. Dessydes 08:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi sorry about the delay in answering your query. As you pointed out the article is incomplete in its historical section and an edit that would remedy this would defiantly be appreciated. That said some people are sensitive to changes in articles, and while I doubt that any upgrade you perform on the article would lead to an editwar it may be best to post the proposed updates in the Discussion section of the article as a precaution. Thanks Freepsbane 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Will keep that in mind. I was going to write a section in my Wikidiaries in the meantime where I knew it wouldn't be tampered with, but someone deleted the documentary I recorded on my PVR. Btw I've not signed in, as my monobook tends to halt the site in IE, hope you don't mind. Again, thanks. Dessydes
[edit] Bint Jbeil
Please use the page's Talk page to expalin your edits. Isarig 23:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
forgive me for my tone, but you have used the talk page for nothing other than to than to asault other editor's character. unless if you will act difrently in that regard the use of talk is imposible. Freepsbane 23:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nonsense. It is clear you have not bothered to read the Talk page (or to contribute to it). I have presented arguments in favor of my revision, which were supported by other editors. You are encourged to use Talk rather than blindly reverting. Isarig 23:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
blind reversions? I am not the editor that has just broken the 3rr rule. [1] [2] [3] [4] Freepsbane 23:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- You don't understand WP:3RR, newbie. [5] is not a revert, but the addition of new information, complete with new source never before present on that page. there is not a "previous version" which has that edit. And yes, you are engaged in blind reverts - having revrted my edits twice without bothering to explain yourself on Talk.Isarig
You reverted the pre existing version of that page, the very same version you have reverted in the past. True there was aproximatly a day of space betwen the first revert you executed today, but is was still the revertion of data that has been contested and disputed nontheless. Freepsbane 00:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I changed an exiting version, but did not revert. Liek I said, you don't understand the concept of revert. That's ok, you're a newbie. There's a lot for you to learn. Isarig 01:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Youe edit to User:TheRanger
Regarding the following diff, I see no evidence that User:TheRanger is a sockpuppet of anyone. The notice was added and readded by new users and IPs, any reason you restored that template ? Equendil Talk 20:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cerebral
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted Material from 'First Battle of Fallujah'
I did not vadalize this article, I deleted bad information and citations that did not back up the claims they were cited to support. I have removed the material again and put my reasoning on the talk page. - Atfyfe 19:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re"Hypocricy"
Please stop your hypocrtical POV pushing. You have inserted the words "Official allegations" in the 2003 Iraq War Info box, please do not describe my labeling of allegations that not all deaths are reported as "weasel words". Clintonesque 02:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The term official allegations is simply a technical term, the reasons provided for the war have at least informally shifted. That said please try to maintain Wikipedia:Civility accusing other editors of being hypocrites is hardly constructive, and remember that Wikipedia:No personal attacks is an enforced policy. thank you Freepsbane 11:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Furthermore the fact that deaths inevitably go unreported is fact of war, and with the current chaos it is well acknowledged that all bodies are not found right away.Freepsbane 11:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikilawyering and abuse of warnings
If you disagree with my edits, may I suggest you discuss them on Talk, rather than reverting them with false edit summaries which also violate WP:NPA. And if you wish to embark on a career as a wikilawyer, it would behoove you to at least familiarize yourself withthe policies you are invoking. WP:3RR refers to 4 reverts in 24 hours. Clintonesque 03:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Remember the NPA attack policy, you have no reason to react hostilely to warning tags I have placed on the talk if you have actually violated the rules, furthermore additionally if you have not noticed you have made more than 3 reverts in a mere 24 hours, if I were so inclined I could have reported such to an administrator, my use of talckpage warnings was simply for good faith. Finaly I have removed you’re retaliatory warning on the grounds that I have come nowhere near braking the 3rr rule on any page remember false talk page accusations are tantamount to vandalism.Freepsbane 03:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please count more carefully, I have not made more than 3 reverts in 3 hours. Feel free to report this alleged violation if you think there are more than 3 - I encourage you to. Clintonesque 04:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
No my friend you have made a mistake, the 3RR rule is not limited to 3 hours but instead 24 hours,go see for yourself.Freepsbane 21:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Improper Warnings
I have removed your warnings for two primary reasons;
- 1. I have done nothing to warrant the posting of warnings, my revert count's all time record is two in twenty-four hours, not a revert risk by any standard.
- 2. you have not used official templates with your warnings, and instead inserted spliced together text messages that come as far more confrontationally than a template.
Remember the insertion of improper warnings, or pseudo-warnings is a vandalistic action, as for your threat to contact administrators rest assured they have already been notified of your actions. Now please if you have nothing constructive to add leave my talk page alone.Freepsbane 21:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] VROR
Thanks for your message. I am looking at the situation now. Please give me a day or so to do it properly. In the meantime, don't interact with this user. Don't edit war with him, don't even edit anything he has edited. You both need time to calm down after that. Take care, --Guinnog 21:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC) yes will do.Freepsbane 03:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You and User:Clintonesque
(copied from Clintonesque's user talk) Hi. Freepsbane asked me to look at your interactions with him and I see they have been less than cordial. The solution I propose is that both of you:
- Refrain from editing each others' talk pages for a month. Instead you may commmunicate through me, or any other admin who wants to get involved. This should be easy if you also both agree to
- Discuss any proposed changes in articles you have both edited in talk first and obtain consensus for those changes
- Refrain from edit-warring over the Fallujah article. I'd like you both to observe WP:1RR on that article please
Do you accept? I'm copying this to him as well. All the best, --Guinnog 00:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, I would be more than willing to follow your instructions. My apologies for the slow response, a real life strep infection kept me out for a bit. Once again thank you for your time. Freepsbane 00:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back, sorry you weren't well. Thanks for your good will. Let's move this forward. --Guinnog 00:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Aye, thanks.Freepsbane 00:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fallujah
Got no problem with the 11 deaths you found that I missed, but how does that change from 42 to 83? Shouldn't it be 53? Also, I'm uncomfortable with the restored "ref=guardian" tags, somebody had added them throughout the original article to just cover their ass without citing any specific articles. I'm also unclear on why the wikilink to Jasim Mohammed Saleh was removed, when really it should have been kept, and an additional link to Muhammed Latif added. Finally, the US withdrew from the city, marking the end of the battle, on May 1st - not April 9...so I'm unclear on that change as well. I'm going to bump the numbers to 53 KIA, and add the Latif reference - but revert the rest for now, unless there's a reason for it. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello thanks for the compliments on 1st and 2nd battle of Ramadi and battle of Husaybah, I did as best as I could but there are no POV from the insurgents because I don't think that they have embeded reporters with them. If you could help me edit those articles then great. And when they are good enough I think they should be put in the campaignbox because 2nd battle of Ramadi is on the scale of Together forward and Husaybah and 1st Ramadi are on the level of battle of Debecka pass and also you asked for information to verify the number of killed American Marines I confirmed that based on the units that were envoled and checked those units casualties in that time period also the 20 Marines killed in the april 2004 battles in Ramadi and Husaybah are listed killed also in the 1st battle of Fallujah. I think that they should be removed,the number revised from 53 to 33, after all there is in that article the list of units participating in that battle and those 20 killed are not members of those units.
[edit] Re: Bugei
I've never personally used anything from Bugei, so I'm sorry to say I can't give any kind of personal testimony. From poking around various swordsmanship forums, I've never seen anyone complaining, though. I doubt you'll go too far wrong doing business with them. Kensai Max 23:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Fallujah casualties
Listen Freepsbane, 83 is the number of American casualties during the battle of Ramadi,Husaybah and Fallujah plus another 30 in other parts of Anbar during that month. I have checked all the units the killed Marines were killed and crossreferenced them with their garisson location in Anbar and have come to a conlcusion that only 33 were killed in Fallujah or near Fallujah, 15 were killed during the battle of Ramadi which is put in that seperat article, 5 were killed during the battle of Husaybah which is put in that seperat article and another 30 were killed in other parts of Anbar. If you don't belive me check for yourself the units the killed guys belong to we have put the names of all the units that were in that battle and only 33 corespond. So stop changing the damn number man. The Guardian artical was wrong it has not happened the first time. Top Gun 01:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Sorry if I sound blunt but the Guardian says 83 KIA in Fallujah and as one of brit’s largest news papers it holds precedent over original research and we are going to stick to policy rather than the Danger Zone, so as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources we are going to use the Guardian’s body count rather than Top Gun’s original Research. If you don’t think that this is the way to go than contact an admin, but we are striking to rules and verified numbers over guesses.Freepsbane 03:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to be blunt as well, but first of all, your clumsy blind revert erased all the references in the article. Take more care next time. More to the point, sourcing things to "The Guardian", a daily newspaper, without providing a specific , verifyable issue in which that claim was made is like not sourcing it at all. Until you can produce an accurate source that says "83', that figure is out. Teens! 04:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
