User talk:Aiden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Restorationism

The Restorationism article is in terrible shape. Amongst its many problems is a complete lack of citations. Do you have any online resources that you feel might help in a cleanup of that article? Everything from style and form to grammar needs attention; I'm willing to do a chunk of the work in cleanup, but I don't have the source background to do it right. Anything you can direct me towards would be appreciated. Thanks, -Kevin/Last1in 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian "Cannon"

You gave me quite the chuckle with a simple, one-letter typo. I laugh because it's the kind of thing I do, not in any way to belittle you. You wrote, "...the Gospels are Christian cannon anyway." A canon is an ecumenical doctrine, rule or foundation; cannons are things you shoot people with. I really, really, really hope you meant the former... Kevin/Last1in 01:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you reverting my changes and claim them to be POV?

Dear Aiden, In the last couple of days you have twice reverted my attempt to make the Greater Israel article a bit more NPOV. The existing text says that claim that Eretz Yisrael HaShlemah stretches from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates is nothing but an anti-Zionist and Islamist conspiracy theory, while at the same time adding that "no prominent Zionist or Israeli intellectual or political figure advocates pursuing such borders". That text is really bad, as it one the one hand says that it's a false claim invented by critics or enemies of Israel, but at the same time recognises that some Israelis have that view, as the addition that no "prominent" Zionists, intellectuals or politicians have this view indicates that some less prominent people do.

So, I think that my attempt, "According to a few Revisionist Zionists, who try to keep the views of people like Avraham Stern and Israel Eldad alive, the proper borders of the Land of Israel stretch from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates. This extremist view has frequently been used in anti-Zionist and Islamist rhetoric as a proof of Israel's true intentions, although it is rejected by most Israelis" is more accurate and more NPOV, as it clearly states that this is an extremist view, held by only a few, which is being used as "proof" by critics and enemies of Israel, although most Israelis don't share that view.

As you have reverted my change twice, without any other motivation then "POV", I would very much like to hear your reasoning behind it. Unfortunately there are small extremist Jewish/Israeli groups who claim that Israel should encompass all the area mentioned in the Bible. I see no reason to suppress this fact. However, I do think that the article should be moved to "Complete Land of Israel" with a rewrite and redirect from Greater Israel, as the term "Greater Israel" is an extremely poor translation of Eretz Yisrael HaShlemah, and is a major reason for some of the worries among Israel's neighbours for Israeli expansionist plans. It's bad enough that several groups today interpret Eretz Yisrael HaShlemah to include all the occupied territories as well as, in some cases, most of Jordan. Best regards, Thomas Blomberg 19:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Okay, so you want sources to the claim that Stern and Eldad advocated a Eretz Yisrael HaShlemah in accordance with the Bible:
Lehi, founded by Avraham Stern, advocated the establishment of a "Hebrew kingdom from the Euphrates to the Nile", according to Jewish Library.
According to an article in The Jewish Press, April 7, 1972, Eldad launched a monthly publication after the establishment of Israel, "named "Sulam" (Ladder), in which he sharply criticized Israeli government policies and advocated the establishment of a new "Malkhut Yisrael" (Kingdom of Israel) through the liberation of the entire Land of Israel as defined in the Bible". Save Israel Eldad biography. "Israel Eldad is famous for his advocacy, throughout the l950s and 1960s, of a Jewish state stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates", says Ian Lustick in chapter 5 of his book For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel.
Both Stern and Eldad still have admirers and followers. The US-based website Save Israel is only one of many devoted to the writings of both men, so obviously there are people who think like they did. According to Ian Lustick, Yaacov Feitelson, former mayor of Ariel, has stated: "I say that Israel should establish new cities throughout the entire area. I mean really the whole area of the Middle East, without limiting ourselves", and Yehuda Elitzur, one of the most respected scholars in Gush Emunim, according to Lustick, considers the "promised" boundaries - extending to the Euphrates, southern Turkey, Jordan, and the Nile - to be "the ideal borders" for the lands Israel is required eventually to conquer and settle.
So, Stern and Eldad clearly held this view, and there are obviously a few, both inside Israel and outside, who still feel the same way. Best regards, Thomas Blomberg 04:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mel Gibson Net Worth Vandalism

Dear Aiden,

Please avoid stating false financial information, as you did in the article Mel Gibson. I have been actively pursuing another individuals edits and he has been doing similar things as well. I don't know whether you reverted to his previous edits accidentally or added the bogus financial information yourself, but please be careful. Always cite your information and discuss unclear things on the discussion page. Thank you. --Theelectricchild 18:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli-occupied territories

Hi Aiden,

I was wondering why you reverted the minor change I made on the above article? Could explain how the Israeli military administration in Palestine would not qualify as a military dictatorship?

Thank you, Louis

[edit] Moved

The following discussion (in a sub section) was originally started on the talk page of the evolution article. I judged it to be very unlikely to result in any improvement of the article (or even of a change). My reasons for this were many but mainly I noted that the same concern has been raised many times on the talk page and has very rarely (or possibly not at all) resulted in an improvement of the article. As talk pages are for the purpose of improvement to an article your user page seemed a better place to carry out this sort of discussion:

Regards, Barnaby dawson 09:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved back. —Aiden 13:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI the talk page on evolution is regularly trolled and issues surrounding the creationist perspective are often raised. Long and pointless discussions are regularly carried out on the talk page of the evolution article. Many editors have agreed to remove irrelevent and pointless discussion to user talk pages (To get an idea of the scale of the problem with such postings take a look at the archives of the evolution talk page.). This is not against wikipedia policy and hardly amounts to "censorship". Barnaby dawson 17:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, on your questions about Irreducible complexity and NPOV in the evolution article see [1]. Nowimnthing 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please watch and consider Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. I have answered you on the talk page about my revert. Nowimnthing 16:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irreducible Complexity

You have been petitioning to have IC included in the Evolution topic and have repeadetly ignored my arguement why it should not be included. Just for the record, I will write it once more. IC, by the admission of it's leading proponent, Bahe, has no scientific evidence to support it. Not a single study has been done to confirm this theory. Now, this fact makes this theory no different than an infinity of other theories proposed over the ages. To include IC into the article would require us to give space to all those other theories (it's gonna make life hard that there are an infinity of them) as there is no way to differentiate the validity of one thoery over the other. I agree that IC has a much higher support from the general public (due to ID's great PR campaign), but science is not decided by majority rule. So please, unless you can provide a reason why IC is better than another theory, cease requesting that it be included in the article.--Roland Deschain 01:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"You don't seem to have a problem including arguments against evolution based solely on faith, so why not one of the most popular 'logic based' arguments? —Aiden 07:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)"
I would have a huge problem if arguments based on faith (for or against) were included into the evolution topic. Can you point them out to me in the article so I can state my opposition to them and try to remove them (the misunderstanding section does not include arguements against evolution, it contains widespread misconceptions about the theory of evolution). I've read through the article twice and haven't found them. As to logic arguments: every single logical argument in biology (and science in general) must have some scientfic evidence behind it. And as Bahe has said, IC does not have any evidence going for it at all, so his logic is based on premises that have no validity to them (more than that, his premises have been proven false--see Irreducible Complexity. Bahe has based his entire logic on premises that cannot be differentiated from an infinity of other premises. --Roland Deschain 23:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
If I may presume to add my two penneth, I would put in that 'irreducible complexity' is manifestly not a 'logic-based' argument. In fact, it is quite the opposite: a logical fallacy. It is an argument from personal incredulity. Instead of actually proposing scientific evidence that an organism or part thereof could not possibly have evolved through natural means, it simply argues that some things appear to be so complex that they must therefore have been designed. It's not much different from the discredited Watchmaker/teleological argument. It does not take into account that there are several natural paths proposed for every one of its examples - from the celebrated flagellum to the old hackneyed 'evolution of the eye' - and even if there weren't, that in itself would not be enough to prove that such a natural explanation could not exist and must necessarily therefore imply a designer. While it may be acceptable as a philosophical argument, it is certainly not a scientific argument and does not belong as a scientific criticism of evolutionary science. JF Mephisto 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I tried to expand on your NPOV point on the bottom of the Evolution discussion page if you are interested.

Bioliquid2fusion

[edit] "Salvation" section

Hello! I notice that you are a contributor to both Christianity-related and Islam-related articles, so I suspect we shall editing the same articles from time to time!

Regarding your reversion of my edits to the "salvation" section of "Christianity", please don't forget that your deletions on wikipedia should, ideally, be carefully justified.

Your deletion of clear, relevant and verifiable information does not appear to really be in line with wikipedia policy and guidelines. The salvation issue has several points of view, so I suggest all of which should be properly explained (in line with the NPOV policy).

Anyway I look forward to working with you in the future!

N-edits 16:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your NPOV attempt

Someone reverted your NPOV edit on the opening of the Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo/Takeshima page. I didn't revert it back since I thought you might like to be the one to provide the rationale, or perhaps you will accept his reasoning (and because I've been editing the article quite a bit lately). Personally, I think it's good wording regardless of where the article winds up.

I have no idea the best way to start out the article, but it seems that both sides are at odds with one another. I appreciate you taking the time to try to help with a solution that worked elsewhere. If you add it back, I might suggest you note the parallel between the Palestinian territories article you mentioned on the talk page--it seems the reverting user didn't read it. LactoseTIT 03:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death and Resurrection of Jesus

Ignoring verifiability issues and citations for the time being, you have changed:Because the historicity of these two events are usually considered the religions' point of falsifiability to Because the historicity of these two events are considered by some to be the religions' point of falsifiability. I was wondering what are some other points of falsifiability for Christianity? Hypothetically speaking, if it was proven without a doubt that Jesus did not rise, would Christianity still be true? Just somethings to think about.--Andrew c 16:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1948 Arab-Israeli War

Aiden, you've added some information to this article for which no sources are cited. Please remember that all information added to Wikipedia must cite verifiable, reliable sources. In fact Transjordan did not invade Jerusalem: the Arab Legion was determined to stay out of Jerusalem for political reasons, assuming that Israel would do the same, but in fact the Jewish Agency had decided early in 1948 to establish west Jerusalem as capital of Israel by force. Israel also attacked east Jerusalem on 17 May; Transjordanian forces entered the Old City on 19 May, i.e., Israel attacked the "Corpus seperatum" with a view to annexing west Jerusalem and Transjordan responded to that action - see Klein, Jerusalem: The Contested City, pp. 44-45. Iraq occupied defensive positions in the hills of the West Bank, and didn't invade Israel except for brief incursions, none of which lasted for more than a few hours - see The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, pp. 93 and 125. Lebanon didn't invade Israel either. There are perfectly good reasons why history books refer to Arab armies "entering Palestine" rather than "invading Israel". --Ian Pitchford 18:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Patently false. The Arab Legion invaded not only the Old City (and its Jewish quarter) on May 15, but various blocs and settlements north and south of Jerusalem (including the Etzion bloc and the Sheikh Jarrah district) as well. —Aiden 23:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Remember WP:NOR! With regard to your question on my talk page all I can say is that the Palestinians didn't invent Zionism - but who cares about the opinions of Wikipedia editors? That's why we don't change articles without citing our sources - right? --Ian Pitchford 14:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see sources in my reply above! --Ian Pitchford 14:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI : Kfar Etzion felt on May 13 (Efraïm Karsh, The Arab-Israeli Conflit - The Palestine War 1948, Osprey Publishing, 2002) And it is Transjordanian Arab Legion that took it. nb:(on the kibboutz's website they talk about May 14). Alithien 18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus' life

Just wanted to drop you a note saying thank you for your efforts in getting the new version into the main Jesus article. Job well done!--Andrew c 15:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus's Genealogy

Hi. Why did you revert the genealogy section? Was it done without discussion? I seemed to have missed it. --Haldrik 22:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We implemented the condensed version we had been working on for weeks. The discussion is there. —Aiden 01:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
But as far as I can tell, the discussion ended like this:
  • Your proposal dwells more on the Gospels than on Jesus. —Aiden 22:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair point. For that reason the fuller text seems better as it conveys how the Gospels portray Jesus himself by describing his special status. Barring objection I'll post it when the time comes. Haldrik 06:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Posted. Haldrik 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It was posted and there was no more discussion after that. Am I looking at the wrong archive? --Haldrik 01:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baruch Goldstein

Might I enquire as to why you think that a person who belonged to two officially designated terrorist organizations (JDL and Kach) and who committed a premeditated massacre of 29 civilians should not belong in the terrorist category? Deuterium 14:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If your motive here is simply because you dislke the existence of the terrorist category, then why aren't you removing the other 100 or so entries in Category:Terrorists? Why have you singled out Goldstein to be removed from the category?
This also seems a WP:POINT violation - if you dislike the category you should push for it's deletion via the regular channels, not disrupt articles that use the category. Deuterium 14:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The neutral point of view is that Goldstein was a terrorist. He belonged to two terrorist organizations and committed a major act of terror, killing 29 civilians. You can't get any more terrorist than that. Deuterium 14:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Only an extremist minority believe that Goldstein pre-empted a Hamas attack, and there is scant evidence for it. Just because a tiny minority disputes something doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to take them seriously. I'm sure there are still flat-earthers around, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia can't say that the Earth is a sphere and categorize it as such. Deuterium 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
And it's worth noting that even his supporters believed he was committing an act of terror designed to disrupt the peace process - Goldstein is not known to have given any reasons for his actions. However, immediately after the attack, Mike Guzofsky, spokesman for Kahane Chai in New York and a close friend of Goldstein said, "He wanted to stop the peace process dead. He couldn't have picked a better day – Purim, when Jews fight back." (from Cave of the Patriarchs massacre)Deuterium 15:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Terrorist category

I agree that this category should not exist, but I am concerned about the reverting happening on the Baruch Goldstein article. I saw you have tried to get the category deleted before but was unable to reach consensus and that is a shame.

There is no official policy on Wikipedia that states to avoid the word Terrorist. There is Wikipedia:Words to avoid, which is a guide... And it argues both for and against the use of said word! What it does state is that the word should be used in a manner that describes who is calling them what. Is a notable organisation calling Baruch Goldstein a terrorist and are there reputable sources that backs that up? If so, I believe the category should remain. mceder (u t c) 16:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity Personal Award

Check out Christianity_Personal_Award--JuanMuslim 1m 23:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ra'anana

Thanks for making the changes to the Ra'anana page. However, to be pedantic (and with my tongue firmly in my cheek), I have to say that Montreal is an American city, just as Mexico City, Buenos Aires and Santiago are all American cities. America does not consist soley of the United States of America. Cymruisrael 05:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad reverts

Hey, just as a note - I revert more often than I would like, and need to end the practice because of the collateral damage it causes. Take a better look at this revert you made - it ended up reintroducing two copies of the same image, which another editor had corrected in the meantime. Reverting is a touchy matter and should be done carefully. As for the content dispute over that section, I can't and won't address that - I think it's best if you and Aminz resolved that one on your own.

By the way, if you happen to see me doing the same thing on any of the articles you have on your watchlist, let me know. I think it's important that we all get feedback on our edits. Captainktainer * Talk 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on Muhammad's talk page about your reversion of my edit. Thanks --Aminz 06:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're Right

I put on my squirrelly thinking cap and produced a weasel. Thanks for correcting me.Nodekeeper 00:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Muhammad as a diplomat

Aiden, you may find something of interest in this article.Proabivouac 09:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Featured picture promotion
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:US Capitol Building at night Jan 2006.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. KFP (talk | contribs) 07:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This is to let you know the Featured Picture you uploaded and/or nominated Image:US Capitol Building at night Jan 2006.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the day on December 10, 2006, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations! howcheng {chat} 17:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Christianity Template

I have created a new merger template, per the request, to replace both the Christianity and Christian Theology templates. I noticed your interest in the template. I would appreciate your comments. Please place comments on the template discussion page, so others can read them. Thanks.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 05:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tanakh

The Jewish Tanakh and the Christian Old Testament are the same thing. They are synonyms. The only difference between various editions is the arrangement of the books and a few words, similar to the way the Catholic and Protestant Bibles are slightly different. Wjhonson 12:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware of this. However, the Tanakh article is not an article on the Tanakh, but appears to be solely an article on the term "Tanakh". Hence my comment that I wish there was a comprehensive article on the Tanakh/Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and not simply individual article discussing only the terms. —Aiden 06:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure you were viewing the Tanakh article and not the Hebrew Bible article ? The Tanakh article is not just about the term. Wjhonson 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad quote removal

The quote you just removed was added by Str1977. --Aminz 08:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a word by word quote. What's the issue then? --Aminz 08:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have had. What else should be included in the quote? --Aminz 08:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, what sentences of the source can provide the required context?

Sorry, this last bit "What you've been doing is the primary reason why this article was removed from the Good Articles list" is kind of funny. The article was removed from Good article status long ago, before i touch it. How did you come up with this BTW? --Aminz 08:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Three revert report

Aiden, Aminz break 3RR TWICE in past two days but no one do anything yet. Please see report on WP:ANI/3RR and comment on your experience dealing with this.Opiner 06:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning all parties to stop the edit warring on Muhammad

Reach a consensus on the talk page or I will have no choice but to fully protect until you do - and this always happens to the wrong version. Consider this effective immediately.  Glen  08:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Arab_Custom

--Aminz 10:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

Aiden, that was intentional. IMHO the section is already much too detailed. In any case, it doesn't belong at the end of this paragraph but in the proper context. Maybe you can work something out so that this works, if you insist on having it in the article text. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 12:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Aiden. I think a footnote is a good middle ground between simply removing details and turning the persecution section into a "persecution of Christians with a focus on Islam" section. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 12:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reforms under Islam (610-661)‎

Hi Aiden, look at this new article with old Muhammad material. Aminz and Truthspreader now attracting the helpful reverters including Nielswik with the anti-Semitism history and undoing all my edits. Making Muhammad look like St. Francis againOpiner 09:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the Quran

Hi, this is a new article we're having problems with. You might be interested in helping out. Check out the history for the state of affairs [2]. Arrow740 00:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

In the intro you changed one of my edits to this:

Christians typically believe in Jesus as the Son of God sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity with his death on the cross.

in modern English I believe something along thes lines would be more succinct and appropriate, and would also describe Christian beliefs using common English as opposed to English only known locally in church circles. things such as believe in Jesus are ambiguous. What do you think about changing the above to something like this: ?

Christians typically believe Jesus is the Son of God, and that he was sent by God to provide salvation from death and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity by his death on the cross.

[edit] Opening paragraph of Dokdo

next time when you want to change the opening paragraph, would you discuss first in the talk page in order not to get into edit war again? As far as I remember there once was that suggestion to change the opening paragraph to put additional 'one of several names for' but there wasn't any consensus came out of that discussion. In my opinion, that suggestion cannot be justifed by NPOV argument. Otherwise every article regarding any object with more than one name should begin as you suggest when the other party is not happy with the name. What I meant by misleading is that when you begin the article with your opening sentence, the article is expected to be about the name of 'Dokdo' itself, not about the islets. It's confusing and the article becomes not well-written. Therefore the article should begin 'xxx is a group of islands...'. Considering articles like Senkaku islands or Kuril islands are putting the name of the status of quo in their opening paragraph and referring to the object with the name, I think the opening paragraph should be just like before you modified. Ginnre 04:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you read the archives you'll see that this solution was proposed long ago with no objections. It had since stood for sometime before users with agendas changed it. This is a perfectly acceptable compromise and works flawlessly for other controversial articles such as Palestine and Eretz Yisrael. Cheers. —Aiden 15:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Yes I remember that suggestion, maybe it was from you. However, I was one of the guys who opposed the suggestion and as far as I remember there was no clear consensus for that suggestion. And as far as I know Palestine is the only article that has that kind of opening paragraph. Articles about disputed islands in WP don't begin that way. Again, putting 'one of several names' makes an article confusing, hence not well-written. The articles are about the islands, not about the names. Ginnre 06:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] commons:Image:Galil.jpg

Hi Aiden, in July, i have uploaded your Picture Image:Galil.jpg to commons. Now there seems to be some license problems. May you have a look. With the best greetings from Germany --M.L 23:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of edit?

Why did you remove my edit of Christ's arrest, trial, and death? There is no evidence in scripture to say that Roman soldiers arrested Christ, whereas there is plentiful historical evidence to back the Jewish quasi-military explanation. Also, although Pilate says "I find no fault with this man' this not indicate that this was why he washed his hands.

Please read the edit summary. The previous version was sourced. You made changes contrary to the secondary source provided. —Aiden 15:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Article

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Disco79 11:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the edit summary, which was very detailed. The article has followed a very specific and well thought-out layout for some time now. Your contributions do not fit within this framework and essentially alter how the article is organized. Out of respect for the collaborative process, such drastic changes should be discussed on Talk so that other editors (such as those who have been involved with the article for years) can discuss and debate such changes, rather than having them made unilaterally. —Aiden 12:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Disco79 13:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see above. —Aiden 13:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War in Somalia

The US has admitted -- repeatedly -- that is has committed naval forces to cordon off Somalia, and US marines are providing border patrol in Kenya. They are not 'combatants', but they are definitely involved. If you have debates, please conduct them on the "talk" page first before yanking content. --Petercorless 11:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said they weren't involved. I merely said the source provided next to their listing under 'combatants' makes no such claim. It states merely that the US gives 'tacit approval' to Ethiopia's military support for the TFG and is this misrepresented in the article. Further, if are not combatants, as you readily admit, why would they be listed under the 'combatants' section of the campaign box? —Aiden 13:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sending warning messages

Hi, when you're sending a warning message to a vandal, could you use {{subst:vw}}, {{subst:test4}}, etc., instead of just {{vw}}, {{test4}}, etc. It means that the text of that particular template will be added to the talk page of the user instead of the user just seeing a mirror image of it (transposed). Two advantages are that if the actual template is vandalized, the message you have sent will not be altered in any way, and also less load is placed on the server. For more information, please see WP:SUBST. Cheers. Mkdwtalk 10:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/i/d/User_talk%7EAiden_53de.html"