User talk:Zer0faults/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 WP:POINT 2 GunBound and Rakion 3 Warning 4 Graffiti and nazi pictures 5 WOT template & Iraq War 6 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza 7 WOT template & Iraq War 8 Iraq War casualties 9 Ann Coulter poll 10 Operation Linebacker 11 ForestFire 12 Compromise 13 3RR suggestion 14 Shopping For Votes 15 Here we go again 16 At it again 17 Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006 18 Operation Summer Rain 19 Operation Summer Rain 20 Wikiproject 21 User notice: temporary 3RR block 21.1 Regarding reversions[6] made on July 1, 2006 (UTC) to Iraq War 22 Sources for WOT 23 Links for 2000 al-Qaeda Summit 24 Template 25 MedCab: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Wikipedia:WOT 26 Amazing isn't it? 27 Template WOT 28 Note 29 for Zer0faults 30 Curious 31 Isn't it different? 32 War on Terrorism 33 Unfortunate 34 Barnstar 34.1 whirlwinds and vortexes 35 made a mistake 36 Nescio RfC 37 RfAr involving Zero 38 None of my business, but... 39 Cruft alert 40 Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006 41 Nomen on POV pushing break

[edit] WP:POINT

What are actions I can take against a user editing articles in attempts to prove a point? They have gone on to edit articles in clear violation of concensus, their own opinion, and the sources provided, to try to prove a point against me. It has become disruptive as they have reworded a template to add artices to it, changed the overview or an article on a world organization, removed and added templates to numerous articles and finally even edited the War on Terror article removing the US from the overview. They have done it in an arguementative way, and their edit summaries read the same way, arguing a political point and not providing sources for information added or removed. I am going to pull my hair out, I have asked this user for what they feel would be appropriate venue for mediation, however they have ignored my question. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You could try a Request for Comment. I am leaving the help template in place so that others can provide further suggestions. Viridae^Talk 02:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The request for comment is appropriate. If that does not resolve the issue, than place the helpme back up. Thanks! Eagle talk 02:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GunBound and Rakion

Thanks. I think the GunBound article and the List are okay now. Right now I'm focusing on Rakion, which used to work on my computer but now doesn't. I still remember the basic things but can't get screenshots (not even the logo). Can you help me? Thanks. Freddie _Message? 00:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Looking over your Usertalk page, here and here, it appears you have an longstanding and ongoing personal grudge against Nomen Nescio. Viewed in that light your actions at Talk:Iraq War are petty harassment. That needs to stop. FeloniousMonk 16:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it funny you would refer to a RFCU that Nomen participated in against me that proved I was not a sockpuppet, as some sort of proof that I have a grudge. Or that Nomens vandalism of WP:WOT is also some how proof of me having a gurdge against him. You should do more then just look at one person talk page. Did you even look at the users on his talk page attempting to get him to participate instead of starting a revert war? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that Nescio is going to leave us alone, he stated "Anyway, I have decided to stop editing any article this person (meaning you) resides since he is unwilling to engage in serious attempts at reaching consensus but vehemently tries to get his POV endorsed. This makes the matter at hand moot." On face value it looks like this means he will stop revert warring, but you never know. Rangeley 00:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not even care at this point, I wish he would have just worked toward a middleground. He however stated he would not do that because he felt it was just wrong to include it, he said this in the statement calling you and I, "zealots". I do not even mind people have objections, but when they are based on Farenheit 911 and just pure hatred for the US, then there is nothing to ever work with and articles will suffer because of it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graffiti and nazi pictures

Hi, I'm new on wikipedia and I'm not sure if it's a right way to communicate with you, but I'll give it a try...

Thanks for your comments. I think I need to justify my actions. The pic had to be removed because:

-someone who wants to find out what graffiti gets the wrong visual definition

-the contemporary definition of graffiti has very little to do with political radicalism

-vandalising cemeteries is not graffiti related

-nazi symbols are DEFINITELY NOT graffiti related

It's like talking about STDs in an article about PLAYBOY! I've been a graffiti writer for over 13 years now and I must say the article is unfortunately not very good (I will gradually try to clean it up and update it). Ask 10 random people what graffiti is - the answer you will get will be "colorful paintings on walls" and this is the exact definition of this term. Of course vandalism and radicalism should be mentioned (but not with sentences such as "some would classify it as a form of terrorism" - this sentence also needs to be deleted) but showing a picture of desecrated cemetery is too much, not to mention associating 'graffiti' with nazi symbols. Look at the pictures I've just added - this is what graffiti is - how does it correlate with symbols of a regime which killed millions? Imagine a person who wants to learn the ideas behind graffiti and wants to look it up in wikipedia. They see nazi symbols and get the wrong visual impression, I think you should also consider the correct impression that an article creates. Hope you understand my point.

Thank you and greetings.

[edit] WOT template & Iraq War

My argument are in the War on Terrorism template talk page. Esaborio 03:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If that is all you have, you will note that those concerns have been addressed in the consensus I linked you to [1]. Whether or not Bush lied is irrelevant. The USA and its allies began a campaign against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. They began the Iraq war as a part of this campaign, because they saw Iraq as a state sponsor of terror (since 1990). Rangeley 11:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[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 01:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WOT template & Iraq War

All right, I'll stick to the current version of the WOT template. Esaborio 02:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq War casualties

(moved to users page) --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain what happened on my talk page earlier, with you moving comments then placing them back? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I was going to move the comment here, and noticed the above note. I assumed you had intended to have the comment on the page. --TeaDrinker 18:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I had meant I moved the discussion to the other users page. Thank you for looking out though. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Coulter poll

Hi, you have participated in Ann Coulter discussions in the past, please see here to cast your thoughts about whether Ann Coulter should be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro. --kizzle 07:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Linebacker

Me and my big mouth (^o^)/. He clearly has an agenda. Next he will change World War II because it wasn't the whole world fighting, the Vietnam War will be too paternalistic a name and ignores that France, the US, Australia, and South Korea were all involved... --Nobunaga24 13:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you seen some of their edit history you would see how far it extends. Take this quote to state thier objection to Operation Desert Storm and Operation Golden Pheasant.

""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"

It has gotten a bit out of hand. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember when I was in Iraq the audible groan that went up when we found out the name was "Operation Iraqi Freedom." We all thought it was stupid, heavy-handed, and perhaps a bit Orwellian. But it doesn't change the fact that the operation was named that. In the case of something like Linebacker, it is about a specific series of bombings, and in that case the operation name is probably the best choice. It also fixes on a particular operation or series of engagements. "Deployment of NATO troops to Bosnia" tell me nothing in particular. In the absence of a widely recognized alternative name, operation names are probably the best choice. --Nobunaga24 13:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ForestFire

Damn, we seem to have a meatball:ForestFire on our hands. I wonder if it would be worthwhile to ask for an ArbCom injunction to prevent the discussion of operational names from spreading to other project pages? Kirill Lokshin 13:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be appropriate. I am afraid the venue will change whenever the discussion slants against this user. I am not sure how the page became hard to follow after only 4 comments were added. None of them indented as the previous line of comments you and Anoranza had participated in. If you feel its appropriate to prevent venue shopping, then I will more then support it, just drop me a link of where to add my comments. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made a proposal here; it may be too heavy-handed for the liking of the ArbCom at this point, so any ideas on better wording would be very welcome. Kirill Lokshin 15:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

How about restoring ALL deleted comments, so people can see what my contributions actually looked like, and to what other comments they were a response. If my comments are left severely mutilated I refuse to have them there. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with you putting your comments in the body. Just do not change the questions that were asked and do not put anything in the top portion. Many people simpyl added new sections to put their votes in. I do not know why you had to be the only one to change the questions, or write in the header instead of just voicing your concerns in the appropriate location. If you continue to put them in the header, or add more to the header that was not the same as what people originally voted and expressed opinions about then I will just keep removing it. You cannot cahgne what the poll is about after people have expressed their opinions on it and said if they agree or not. Make a whole new section called complaints about this poll if you want, just stop editing the header. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to explain that to your partner who mysteriousaly is allowed to place a false statement as NOTE on top. Anyway, are you going to restore the deleted comments or do I remove my contribution? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you stating if the Concensus note is removed, you will stop editing WP:WOT? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am stating that if the article is restored into the original form, with ALL comments in their original location, I will stop. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop posting on my page, I am tired of your all or nothing attitude. You come here with the note compromise, however offer none. You want to edit the header to misrepresent what people voted for. Even after I ceased editing the header of your poll and move my comment to the voting section. If this is the best you can do is to be as vague as possible to then edit the header, your "compromise" of my way or nothing is officially rejected. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you ever have an actual compromise, something that doesnt involve you getting your way and everyone else being ignored, feel free to come back, till then comments under this section will be considered misleading and be ignored. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR suggestion

Before I add my following comment I feel it necessary to add this caveat due to our recent exchange in Talk:Iraq War. What I'm about to say is by no means a threat to report you for anything or even an implication of anything, just merely a suggestion that you read up on a modification of WP:3RR that I noticed several days ago. Apparently wiki-admin have expanded the definition of reverting to be almost all edits on the same page in which the contribution of another editor is altered if there is an edit war in progress. So even if you're simply correcting grammatic errors inserted by another editor it may count as a revert. Given the contentious nature of some of the articles you update it may be worthwhile to read up on the new policy. --Bobblehead 19:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That is good to know, it seems we may all have violated this newly changed policy today. Thanks for the heads up. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately consequetive edits don't count, so I think we're safe, but then our opinion on the matter doesn't count. --Bobblehead 20:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shopping For Votes

I thought we weren't allowed to do this... [2] [3] [4] [5] The shopping list is from here yet not everybody is included in the notification, seems people who were not clearly on it's side were left out like User:CSTAR, User:Tomf688, User:Kirill Lokshin, User:Anson2995, you, .... seems like votestacking to me... ← ΣcoPhreek _OIF 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like editors have a fair chance of being blocked for advertising a vote even if they don't vote-shop, (see Kizzle, explained in more detail here), but I think the policies are in flux. TheronJ 19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here we go again

It has to be done all official like so that certain users will finally let a dead horse alone. I know it's already been 10 days and should have been dropped but the user didn't like the direction the vote was going so made it all official. If you would please drop by. ← ΣcoPhreek _{Is Useless}^Nostalgia→ 16:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] At it again

Nescio is at it again at 2003 invasion of Iraq, any help with the vandalism would be much appreciated as I have reached 3 edits. Luckilly so has he. Rangeley 18:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Already was on it, I wish he would let people talk to him, he just deletes comments off his talk page. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Summer Rain

I'm a little confused by your comments to me under the move proposal. While I have argued the same point, which can be construed as ignoring others' arguments, I haven't created any new sections. I really am acting in good faith - I'm not ignoring others' arguments, I'm rejecting them - which I believe is perfectly reasonable. Whilst I accept that I may come off as rude, that really isn't my intention, and I apologise if I've offended you. WilyD 14:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved it, my apologies, I put the indents by accident, so I changed it to outdent to show I am directing my comments at the thread starter, sorry for the confusion. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. Sorry. WilyD 15:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Summer Rain

Hello, there's been some discussion about Operation Summer Rain vs. Operation Summer Rains at Operation Summer Rain as you well know (sorry, this is a template message). Since you previously expressed interested in this issue, I'd like to get your opinion again, since it's come up again. It may be worth checking newspapers again, since my research indicates they're about 50-50 on usage. Thanks. WilyD 16:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject

It would be a good idea to merge, preferably theirs into ours. Theirs is a smaller scope, just terror, whereas ours also includes counter-terrorism, so it would make sense to go that way. Rangeley 20:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Sources for WOT

Posting here till I can post again.

• 2002 Bali bombing - The government suspects Jemaah Islamiyah [7] who are al-Qaeda afilliate groups PDF[8] and being fought in War on Terror operation Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines. [9] Jemaah Islamiyah links to al-Qaeda exist through Hambali who was responcible for coordinating a 2000 al-Qaeda meeting in Malaysia where he met with two of the Sept. 11th hijackers, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, [10] in attendance was also Khalid Shaikh Mohammed a known al-Qaeda operative. [11]
  • The Age classifies the 2002 Bali bombings as part of the War on Terror. [12]
• 2005 Bali bombing - Government suspects Jemaah Islamiyah [13] who is a al-Qaeda affiliated group. PDF [14] Arrested Hambali in connection, [15] known to be al-Qaeda's Southeast Asia representative and logistical coordinator. [16]Attempted to arrest Jemaah Islamiyah bomb maker Azahari Husin in relation to bombing. [17] Azahari Husin has trained at al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. [18] Noordin Mohamed Top is also being sought as the originator of the bombs, Top is the Jemaah Islamiyah top bomb maker. [19] Jemaah Islamiyah is being fought in Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines as part of the War on Terrorism. [20]
  • The Age classifies the 2005 Bali bombing as part of the War on Terror. [21]

The age classifies the London bombings as part of the War on Terror - [22]

[edit] Links for 2000 al-Qaeda Summit

• Hambali Summit attendance list. [23] [24]
• Khalid Shaikh Mohammed at Summit - [25]

[edit] Template

If Nomen wants to add all those links, let him. I dont think we should even deal with it, leave it to him to defend those against others. However, even as he adds stuff like ER, he removes the Iraq War and 2003 Invasion. Rather then get side tracked, I think we should simply focus on keeping that included. We already proved it is, if he continues to remove it he is clearly in the wrong. And I think that this would neutralize an apperant strategy, that is indeed violating WP:Point. Rangeley 17:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. His additons only go to support Iraq is part of the WOT. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Wikipedia:WOT

IN THE MEDIATION CABAL; Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Wikipedia:WOT

After review of the case notes, the messages, the page itself, and the comments from Nescio quoted below, we have decided that the best course of action is to refer this matter to administrators for review.

To be clear this is not about the part of WOT debate, this is about the current team up to prohibit restoration of the original comments on the "poll," and the refusal to let me comment on that...Either restore all deleted comments to that page, or grant me the right to remove my remaining comments. Further I would like Zero to stop stalking me.

User conduct disputes, specifically ones that require or seek enforcement action, are not within our perview. We cannot make a blanket decision to revert deleted comments at the page in question, nor can we "grant the right to remove" anything from an article or talk page or generally enforce any action taken against undesirable user behavior as we are an informal group of mediators acting for the benefit of the encyclopedia.

The case is remanded to administrators for review. CQJ 06:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake has offered to assist in the matter further if necessary. Please contact him directly should you require his assistance. CQJ 06:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

/s/

CQJ 06:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC);

Clerk of the Mediation Cabal

(moved comment to mediation page) --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing isn't it?

You would expect someone with a Doctorate to be more mature and in control of themselves wouldn't you? ←ΣcoPhreek→ 09:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template WOT

Considering the fact I restored your edits to this template it would look more civil if you not only restored your own edits but this time mine also. Or, are you not willing to try and find compromise? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I restore what I feel is relevant. I do not think its appropriate we conspire to edit together in opposition to others. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 09:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation, thank you for cooperating. You understand that I will not restore your edits in the future. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I would never ask you to restore anything you did not agree with. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think Nescio's flooding of the template is in malice and intent on degrading the information. However, I also think that the Iraq War is NOT part of the War on Terrorism, as it was clearly not begun to fight terrorism. Esaborio 23:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

You may be interested in this: [26] Haizum 03:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] for Zer0faults

[edit] Curious

Morton devonshire 06:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought so, however a RFCU said otherwise I believe. The first two I definatly suspected. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't it different?

Isn't it different to agree that Iraq is part of the WOT, in the estimation of some participants, than to accede that labelling it as such at the top of the infobox, without granting anything to the nuances involved but a pair of quotation marks, is a good idea? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I was all for quotation marks when Kizzle voiced his opinion on the matter. I think its basically settled, if you look at Nescio's additions to the Template:War on Terrorism page, its obvious he feels Iraq is part of it. How else could Downing Street Memo be included and Zarqawi PSYOPS etc. I doubt its all just a violation of WP:POINT --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That was a nice sidestep. Isn't agreeing that Iraq is part of WOT different from agreeing that the infobox should be edited in that particular way? I ask because you gave one as justification for the other, but I don't see their equivalence. Consensus means that all significant objections have been addressed, and I think there's a significant objection that hasn't been addressed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here not to justify peoples actions but to cite facts. If the concensus feels that the Iraq War is part of the "War on Terrorism", then I do not see why it should be left out. Right now as it stands its 27-3 in favor of them being linked, 28-2 if you count that Nescio now adds articles based on the Iraq War into the War on Terrorism template. If the consensus is that they are linked, then the infobox should display it in my opinion. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This time you came close to answering my question. Frankly, your "vote counts" mean shit. Especially since the poll was regarding whether the Iraq War is part of WOT, and not whether the infobox should say so with no explanation of the issues. Then you say "if the consensus is that they are linked, then the infobox should display it". First of all, whether or not the Iraq War is part of the WOT is not a matter for consensus to decide, it's a simple fact. Secondly, there are lots of simple facts that we don't put at the tops of infoboxes. I certainly haven't seen an argument why the need to present this fact at the top of the infobox outweighs its misleading nature. Has anyone even attempted to address that question? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What we are doing is already not standard. Other articles, such as those of wars in the Cold War, do not use quotes around the name Cold War. They simply state "Part of the Cold War." The Cold War was neither cold, nor a Cold War - it was fought in the hottest places in this world at times, and it did indeed involve fighting. Its a proper noun - its been the standard that capitalization has been all that was needed, along with the word being linked so that someone could find out more. But people complained it could be misleading, so I eventually agreed to meet a medium between the two ideas, but without abandoning the truth. We cannot compromise the truth. It is a part of the War on Terror, and that is exactly what the "part of" section in the infobox is for. Were we to leave it out, it would be false and incorrect. So therein lies the balancing act - how to deal with worries of people being misled, without compromising the truth. Thats where the quotes come in.

In reality, we should not even use quotes. Any name can be misleading, the United States of America could be taken as meaning a United Nations of the two Continents of America, as State can mean nation and America can mean both continents. But we dont put quotes around the name, we link to its informative article that explains what it is, even when its in an infobox and we cant explain all the "nuances" of it right there. The War on Terrorism is the very same thing, we shouldnt use quotes around it, we should link to it so that people can find out more. But frankly, I am tired of talking about this single issue, and I assume others are too. It is this reason that I agreed to quotes, but I would gladly abandon this if quotes are no longer a sufficient alternative. I will not agree to any proposal that would censor, or compromise the truth. We have a duty to place it in the Infobox, or else we have abandoned the entire premise that this is an encyclopedia. Rangeley 20:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your final statement: "We have a duty to place it in the Infobox, or else we have abandoned the entire premise that this is an encyclopedia" is a bit confusing. Do you really think that's how it is: either we put this particular fact in this particular infobox, or this just isn't an encyclopedia? I'm not aware of any issue that's so polarized black and white; is this one really that way? What part of the definition of "encyclopedia" says that infoboxes are necessary, and must include, at the top, campaigns that wars are part of?

The Cold War and United States of America examples aren't very helpful, because frankly there isn't a controversy over whether the Cold War was, in fact, cold. There is a significant controversy over whether the WOT is, in fact, being waged against terrorism. See the difference? My main question remains, granting that the Iraq War is part of WOT, what makes a top-of-the-infobox mention necessary? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There was a 28-2 vote, apparently there really isnt a controversy over this either. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is that black and white an issue. If we are to treat controversial facts as second class facts, we are no longer an encyclopedia but instead merely a website where special interests can determine what we do and do not show. It is necessary to put it there because that is the method employed by every other battle, operation, or war that was part of something larger. Thats why its there. Rangeley 01:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War on Terrorism

It's farbeyond statement added and reverted. I'd add that in all cases, adding sources in the job of theone who add the statement. In any case, the article contains 23 {{citation needed}}. It also has poor layoutand is overrun with lists. I would start a complete rewrite in a subpage, with thorough attention to citations instead of arguing over which unsourced statements ouht to be removed. Circeus 16:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would not mind undertaking that, would you reccomend I leave out items without sources or keep them in with fact/citation tags? Most of those tags have been there for quite a long time without anyone even attempting to justify them. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If the tags have been for a long time and nobody bothered to cite them, then it is pertinent to leave them out (until they are added with sources, of course) in the rewrite. I'd make it clear on the article and the talk page that a rewrite is being performed, though. I'm wailling to watch and make source currently {{fact}}ed statements are not reinserted without sources. Just link me to the page once it is started. Circeus 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I start the page at [27], however I will not be starting work on it till tomorrow most likely. Once I start work on it I will post that rework is underway, just in case I find it to be too daunting of a task. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

When I said "a complete rewrite", I did mean "from scratch." I'm not sure the current artic;e can really seve as a basis for anything. Circeus 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, Zer0faults. Shannon^{duck talk} 17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the picture above, with all the drama I seemed to have lost my manners. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to see if you were okay. Shannon^{duck talk} 17:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am fine, just getting annoyed with some of the games people play, reverting with messages of "use talk page" then refusing to answer when asked there why they reverted. Editing here can be very frustrating, especially since seeking help often involves starting a multistaged and slow moving RfC. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Although I'm new here, I've seen quite a bit of that sort of thing. Mostly on other users converstions or conflicts, but have started to get some of that myself. It is starting on the talk page of liberal here. After I put in what I thought was a neutrality, some strange stuff came back as a response. Shannon^{duck talk} 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not surprising, it seems we both edit articles where people would have a need to push a POV. I do not even mind people pushing a POV, as long as a counter point can be given, but I have often dealt with people who refuse to state what they think. Its hard to deal with someone intellectually when they refuse to explain their view, its like chasing the wind, it can end up anywhere the next moment. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha. I know exactly what you mean. Or it's like they create a vortex that manages to get everyone but you sucked down into it, never to return again. Shannon^{duck talk} 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

By 'you' I meant 'one' or me. On the liberal talk page there actually are a couple of good (neutral) editors, though. Shannon^{duck talk} 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think now on I will just throw disputes the admins and stick by their ruling, lay my case out and let them decide. I do not normally ask for penalties against people, especially since they are just attempting to insert what they feel is right. Its not easy to step back from your personal opinion and just try to insert what is factual. I personally do not agree with most of the stuff I put on here, however I do not have much factual proof of world conspiracies to backup statements I would like to add. When that vortex starts to suck in everything, I just hold on and hope not to get sucked in. Its hard not to stoop to the level of others, its so very tempting at times. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth most of the articles I edit have many good editors, many neutral ones as well, since they are not always linked, neutral and good that is. But as you may have seen in your time on Wiki, it only takes one to cause an issue, especially if they rage against the masses. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have an idea of what is going on here. If I say it you probably can kiss me goodbye forever. So I dare not say it. Shannon^{duck talk} 18:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes leaving things unsaid is usually the best route. I know my job would be alot harder if I told everyone I ran into what I really though/felt. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. That's on account of that Eye in the Sky. Or that Eye on the editor, so to speak. There are other means of saying things, though, you know, that are way more private. Shannon^{duck talk} 18:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I have an editor or two I know are reading this right now. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. There are other ways, like email for instance, where those editors wouldn't be able to monitor every word said. I don't like protocols like irc - irc is not private, even though some think it is. Shannon^{duck talk} 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I used to be an IRCop on EFNet so I know for sure that IRC is far from private. I will toss you a hello later tonight. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ok. Thanks, Zer0faults. Talk later. Shannon^{duck talk} 18:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfortunate

Following my request for mediating in what has become a personal matter you have started a RFC. Unfortunately I will not respond since you mistate my position and I will first await mediation on the real issue: the hostile encounters between us. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Been addressed on the Cabal page. The RfC was filed before your mediation cabal request. Please see the edit history if you would like to confirm. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The real issue. Of course. Hmmph. Shannon^{duck talk} 18:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Well deserved. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] whirlwinds and vortexes

Hey, Zer0faults. Are you getting caught in a high spin more, but enjoying it less? There are a number of ways to get sucked into a vortex. Staying nice and civil is good. But consider the wear and tear of QuintoHorribilus, and far the whole thing goes. It will kill you in the end. But then, my head banging will probably kill me in the end, as well. I am stressed to the max over the POV pushing in these 2 articles, liberalism and anarchy. Can you help me, please? Thanks, Zer0faults. Shannon^{duck talk} 00:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] made a mistake

I made a mistake when I said the anarchy article. I meant anarchism. The vortex is a strong one and tinged a deep red. I would help you in your conflicts, except it is difficult for a couple of reasons. I really could use some support in these two articles, though, anarchism and liberalism. It is so over the edge. Just let me know how I can support you and I will be glad to help in any way that I can. Shannon^{duck talk} 14:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nescio RfC

Thanks. Esaborio 04:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Zer0Faults. I really need to talk to you bad. Can we talk, please? Shannon^{duck talk} 13:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just shoot me an email. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, cool. but you gotta shoot me an email.. <shannonlaunois@excite.com>. (I don't have your email address.) I will admit that I am not entirely sure of certain editors and would feel safer if you, ZF could send me an email, yourself, so I know that it is you for sure. Because we are so much alike at heart and mind I trust that I know you on a deep level, if you catch my drift. Also, once having sent the email, could I trouble you to state that you have done do either here or on my page so, again, I am sure that it is you, for sure? asta la vista or something like that. Shannon^{duck talk} 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Morning, ZF. Shannon^{duck talk} 11:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I will send you that email later today. You will know its from me because of the domain its from. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you sign it specifically Zer0Faults. Another cool user also sent me an email. He's very cool..but I am, uh, I just am not sure about some things. Shannon^{duck talk} 11:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the email. Can you send it and will you please talk to me? Shannon^{duck talk} 02:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Zer0Faults, are you up at this hour? Shannon^{duck talk} 07:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr involving Zero

Apparently mediation does not result in improvement of the harrasment I endure. 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} 10:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] None of my business, but...

Are you aware of that Nescio guy's copypasted messages alerting people about your RfAr? I know it's not my business, and you've probably already thought of this, but as I sympathizer I feel I should say that I thought mass-posted RfAr notices were supposed to be a little more... neutral than that. Telling people that you are continuing to endure "harassment" and at your "wits end" when that very harassment is the subject of the RfAr at hand hardly seems like a fair, objective beginning to an RfAr process.

Anyway, good luck, hope that goes well. By the way... I have been accused of Wikilawyering due to my constant nature of pointing out when people are violating Wikipolicy, or WikiGuidelines. I know the feeling. :-) Someone was like "You're violating 3RR" and I said "reverts to simple vandalism don't count" and she said I was wikilawyering and mocked me at WP:ANI. Really great administrator. Karwynn (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have noted it in the RFAr. I had not realized how bias his informing people of the RFAr was. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In Nomen's defense, he notified people who are both supportive and not-so-supportive, so I think I would assume a good faith mistake in this case. TheronJ 15:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

His message is biased, that was the issue, it also includes 4 people not included in the RFAr notice section, 3 of those complaining people in the previous RfC. I just stated the facts on the RFAr page, I didnt draw any conclusions. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You are sucked into that vortex so hard that all your principles have flown out the window with it. Jesus said "If you mean yes, say yes, and if you mean no say no, anything else comes from the evil one. I'm not saying you are evil or any such silliness like that. Just basically - mean what you say, and say what you mean. If all this is more important than friendship, which it clearly is, than I say, ZF, I don't get how you can even breath in that whirling tunnel of darkness.

I need to talk to you. I need to talk to you bad. Can you hear that, please? Can you remember what friendship is and the connection between two people? A lot of people call that connection God. Shannon^{duck talk} 20:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cruft alert

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hands Off VenezuelaMorton devonshire 01:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

[edit] Nomen on POV pushing break

Apparently your desire and efforts toward NPOV has stopped Nescio's POV pushing for now. Keep up the good work. --Tbeatty 20:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I know you are (an independent). That was to Tbeatty, not to you. Shannon^{duck talk} 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That is fine, I just dont want people arguing here. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ok. I understand and it is your page. Shannon^{duck talk} 18:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why won't you send me an email? Shannon^{duck talk} 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that a compicated question? Shannon^{duck talk} 18:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You can email me if you like, I believe my email is registered on Wikipedia. I just wont be able to respond till I get home from work. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I sent you an email. Shannon^{duck talk} 19:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)