User talk:SFont

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello! Though I see you've been editing here for several weeks, I wanted to say welcome to Wikipedia. I enjoyed the articles you've created for Gary Lunn and the Saanich—Gulf Islands. I attended the University of Victoria for three years before moving to Toronto, and I smiled when I saw where you live. Welcome again, and I thought I'd show you the Canadian wikipedians' notice board, in case you haven't been there yet. Take care, Kurieeto 19:51, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen it before. Also, thanks for your comments, it's good to see the pages are getting some usage. Regards, SFont 14:12, Apr 1, 2005 (PST)

[edit] Walter Jones & Ilario Pantano

You put the word allegedly between Ilario Pantano and shot. Are you disputing that Lieutenant Pantano shot them? Are you disputing that they were unarmed? Are you disputing that they were civilians?

I have been following the Pantano case quite closely. Are you awar that Lieutenant Pantano gave a statement to military investigators in June 2004, where he acknowledged shooting them. That they were unarmed is not in dispute. His platoon's translator testified at his "article 32" -- the US military equivalent of a preliminary hearing -- that the women who remained in the compound told him that the men Pantano shot were not resistance fighters, that they were their relatives, who had dropped by for a visit. There is no evidence that they were resistance fighters. They didn't live there. They had no weapons in their car.

Were you aware that Lieutenant Pantano desecrated the bodies of his captives, by slowly and deliberately emptying two entire magazines into them. He fired 60 bullets. His rifle was not on full auto. It was set to fire three bullets every time he pulled the trigger. So, he pulled the trigger twenty times.

He told military investigators that the reason he fired so many bullets was he "wanted to send a message" to other Iraqis. He told the investigators he had decided, ahead of time, that he wanted to send a message. His body desecration was premeditated. And, in his June 2004 statement he did not seem to understand that he had done anything wrong by desecrating their bodies.

Did you know he took trophy photos? Did you know he posed their bodies? Did you know he scrawled a warning over their bodies?

Are you aware that most newspaper accounts of this incident are wildly distorted -- contradict his statement of June 2004. According to many newspaper reports:

  • The Iraqis were caught fleeing when Lieutenant Pantano's platoon started searching the compound. Wrong. The Iraqis left the compound before the Marines arrived at the compound.
  • The Marines had to shoot out their tires to get the fleeing "terrorists" to stop. Wrong. When the Marines waved them over they stopped and pulled over.
  • Lieutenant Pantano warned the "terrorists" to stop -- twice -- when they were advancing on him in a threatening manner. Wrong. The Iraqis were on their knees, facing into the open doors of their vehicle. They weren't advancing on him in a threatening manner. They weren't even facing him. In Lieutenant Pantano's June 2004 statement he said he ordered them to "stop". But it wasn't to stop advancing on him. They never were advancing on him. He was trying to get them to stop talking -- to shut up. But he didn't know how to say "shut up" in Arabic. What probably happened, in my opinon, is that they just couldn't understand him. They probably didn't know what he wanted them to do. His june 2004 statement said he had indicated "with hand signals", that he wanted them to search their vehicle. I ask you, how do you indicate, "with hand signals" that you want someone to search a car? So they are probably asking each other if they can figure out what the angry man with the gun wants them to do. He yells "stop", in Arabic, startles them, so they turn to look at one another. That is when he says he shot them, in his June 2004 statement. After he told them to "stop" they pivoted their bodies to face one another. Rapidly, and at the same time. So he shot them. And shot them. And kept on shooting them until he emptied one magazine. And then he plugged in the second magazine, and emptied it. They weren't advancing on him. They weren't even facing him. They were still on their knees, facing in the opposite direction.

Did Lieutenant Pantano commit cold-blooded murder? Getting a murder conviction would have been hard for the military prosecutors. But terrorism? He has already confessed to being a terrorist. He confessed to it in his June 2004 statement and in an interview he gave to the BBC, where Lieutenant Pantano says: "I'm a New Yorker and 9/11 was a pretty significant event for me, Our duty as Marines is, quite frankly, to export violence to the four corners of the globe, to make sure that this doesn't happen again." Sending a message using dead bodies is terrorism. It is what a bomber does. It is what Lieutenant Pantano did.


I'd respond to this insane rant, but I'm busy following the news on the recent terrorist attacks. Rest assured though I will continue to insert alleged in there and remove civilians until the circumstances surronding the event are clarified. SFont 09:25, Jul 7, 2005 (PST)

SFont, I didn't revert your "allegedly". That was someone else. I tried to engage in a civil dialogue about it. You chose to respond with an insult.
Sorry I neglected to sign my comment. It was an oversight.
If you can be civil, I will look forward to a meaningful thoughtful reply to my comment. -- Geo Swan July 8, 2005 16:56 (UTC)
The final two-fifths of this article, published in the Winston-Salem Journal, among other places, contains a number of quotes from Lieutenant Pantano's June 2004 statement. Let me invite you to read that portion. Once you have read it I think it may be possible you may reconsider whether my comments were an "insane rant". -- Geo Swan July 8, 2005 18:23 (UTC)
Whether he committed cold-blooded murder, as the unsigned comment alleges, is in dispute. Whether he did indeed kill those people is not in dispute. It's like saying that he was allegedly a Marine. I mean, maybe he wasn't really in the armed forces and wasn't authorized to carry weapons. Maybe he was just a racist American who stole a gun and went over there to shoot Arabs. There's an investigation ongoing so it hasn't been clarified that that isn't the case, right? Now, of course, when I flip it around that way, you can see that it's a foolish argument. He was indeed a Marine and he did indeed kill those two people. We don't help our readers by conveying a false impression of a dispute over a point that's not disputed. In fact, it's actively misleading to do so. JamesMLane 7 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)
I am sorry if I left you with the impression that I was arguing that Lieutenant Pantano was obviously guilty of cold-blooded murder. I thought I stopped short of asserting that. I think there should be a proper, fair, thorough, impartial investigation. You think that too, correct?
Unfortunately, I think the investigation we have seen is all that we will get. Major Mark Winn, the officer in charge of the article 32 hearing, recommended dropping the murder charges. Major Winn recommended that Lieutenant Pantano should be charged with desecrating the bodies. It wasn't widely reported, but he criticized Lieutenant Pantano at lenght for what he called "desecration".
Major Winn's recommendations went to the General commanding Lieutenant Pantano's division. General Hood chose to drop all charges. If I understand the US military justice system, there is no route for the military prosecutors to appeal the General's decision to drop charges. -- Geo Swan July 8, 2005 16:56 (UTC)

[edit] User Categorization

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians of British Columbia for instructions. --Doviende 20:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image at Stephen Harper

In the future, do not revert unfree image cleanup. Wikipedia is an attempt to create a free, reusbale encyclopedia. Unfree images will be deleted when freely-licensed images are available. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 16:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please do not revert again on Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. You've already broken the 3RR on that article, and if you revert again, I will block you for 24 hours. You seem to making some kind of a point regarding free v. fair use images, judging from the previous section on your talk page. Don't do that, either, mmkay? -Splash - tk 14:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So it's okay for Gavin to break the fair-use rule but not for me to break the 3RR? --SFont 20:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

In re this edit: 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. Jkelly 03:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Baird

  • I noticed you Prodded Robin Baird. Good luck with that, I totally support you, I tried to have it deleted in the past, didn't work though. - pm_shef 02:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, bud. Mr. Baird's a nice guy and all, and I helped out on his campaign, but as of right now he's just another citizen of Victoria. --SFont 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Baird

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Baird (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 08:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Harperbetter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Harperbetter.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. 08:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obtaining Freely Licensed Images of Canadian Politicans

Thanks! it was rather simple to get a picture of the current Prime Minister. All it took was a short e-mail to the PMO (pm at pm.gc.ca). As for getting a picture of Martin or Chretien, you could try e-mailing the PMO again, although I'm honestly not sure whether they would be able to help you now that the government (and thus the old PMO staff, who would have had such pictures) has changed. It's worth a shot anyhow. If that fails, I'm sure it would be possible to get contact information for both Chretien and Martin if you did a bit of sleuthing for it on the web (Martin's e-mail address is Martin.Paul at parl.gc.ca). I'm sure both men would be gracious enough to release an appropriate photo into the public domain for an article that details their contributions to Canadian politics (although make sure you get them to specficially state that they are doing so, otherwise you'll get caught up in Wikipedia's silly red tape!). Good luck! :) --John Hawke 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/f/o/User_talk%7ESFont_57b7.html"