User talk:84.59.88.9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please only make comments on talk pages relevant to those particular talk pages. Once again, if you have a problem with me, my talk page is open. pookster11 03:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 'ello

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I noticed you are known only as an IP address; that means you are not signed up. To sign up, you only need to click Create account and choose a username and password. You don't need to provide any personal information. If you sign up, you'll have a username that others can use to recognize you and leave you messages on the wiki. You'll be able to sign your name just by typing four tildes, like this ~~~~ when you leave someone else a message. Plus, you (and others) will easily be able to see a list of all your contributions to Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask at the Village pump, or feel free to ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 19:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq invasion

Well thank you for the baseless comment and accusation. As stated several times now, I am trying to make the article on-topic in regards to the invasion, and not the mess or arguments for and against the war it had become. If you feel that there is some issue not covered that should be, or wishto add something to the summary, please, as I have stated twice already, bring up where, you believe the changes need to be. In trying to make the article neutral, that means aspects of both sides arguments that are tertiary have to be moved someplace else; if you feel the article is too one sided, please let me know how and where. Once again, all of the previous debate has been documented and moved to other articles where they are more relevant. pookster11 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC) The fact that the legailty of the invasion is disputed is included in the article. In depth discussion of that dispute is not included because A: it has its own page and B: its not on topic. As per Wiki guidelines, the article contains a summary of the events and makes the reader aware that there is a dispute, but a summary is not an in-depth, quote by quote account of the events and arguments on either side. Once again, I'm not trying to shut one side down or the other, just trying to make the article more succint. If you can think of a better way of summarizing rather than simply incoporating huge chunks of text again, please let me know. pookster11 21:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph in the "Political and Diplomatic" section deals with a summary of the legitimacy dispute and the references the extended article. If you could clarify what additional information you would like added to the summary it would be appreciated. As far as the Latin thing, its irrelevant and I'm not going to get into a big grammatical argument over something said in passing. pookster11 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
If you are incapable of maintaining a professional level of conversation I have no further interest in attempting to work with you on the topic. I have attempted to be fair and diplomatic about this, and do not appreciate the snide jabs and infantile remarks. Second, a summary of the legitimacy dispute and the failed UN resolution is included. References to the protests are included in the article, but maybe a sentence or two should be added to the affect that the buildup to the war sparked the largest ever world protests or something like that. I leave that to you, but please remember we are trying to cut this down and keep it succint and to the point; a whole new section about the protests is not necessary. pookster11 21:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Very well. "Sequitor" is the present imperative deponent. As a deponent, sequor has both a passive and active application depending on the context of the sentence. Non-sequitor therefore translates as "It does not follow" or "It should not follow" with the aspect of command or necessity (rather than the subjunctive jussive "should" or "let us" clause) without needing an object. "Sequitur" is the present 3rd person deponent, once again with a possible active or passive meaning depending on context; non-sequitur therefore translates to "it does not follow" with a passive meaning or "it follows not" with an active meaning. pookster11 22:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War crimes

Please stop editing huge numbers of articles with your point of view without discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to include this information, please come up with citations of proof. Vague claims that "many people see the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilian by area bombing and nuclear weapons as a war crime or crime against humanity" are not evidence. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Telling me to Google doesn't solve the problem. The citation has to be in the article, and it has to be more than just a Google search. It has to be from a reputable organization. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If something is as obvious as this, there does not need to be a citation. You do not need citation for birth dates either. 16,500 is a huge number, isn't it? Please use talk pages rather than unexplained reverts. 84.59.88.9 23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't cite, it will get reverted as your personal opinion. If you cite from a reliable source, I will leave it in. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please also review WP:3RR. More than three reverts will get you blocked for 24 hours. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's three reverts per article, not grand total. And you do understand the difference between articles and Talk pages, right? Putting the sources in the Talk pages does no good. Put them in the article or stop editing. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have a clear Point of View. I get it. But you have to stop

I realize that you have a serious point of view. You have to learn to live with the fact that many others don't share it. It is certainly appropriate to discuss the legitimacy issues of the Iraq War...but in the appropriate article. You should not keep trying to make categorical statements that the US action was illegal and that the"majority of legal experts have concluded it was illegal". That's just nonesense. Certainly a number of people agree. Many others don't. So stop trying to push your point of view. Let's just calm down and keep things balanced and accurate.

I think that pookster is doing a great job of cutting down the Iraq invasion article to a suitable length and have it deal with the invasion itself. He has opened a number of related pages for the kinds of things that have interested you. For example you clearly want to make a case that al jazeera was targeted. That doesn't belong in this article either.

Let's don't have prolonged edit disputes. Dawgknot 00:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't make judgments about what other people's views on the war are. It is entirely not relevant. Those issues can be fully addressed in the articles that deal with those issues. That we disagree about these issues isn't the point. We need to be careful to keep this neutral. If the invasion was ostensibly conducted on the basis of UN resolutions, the article doesn't vouch for the truth of that. It only states that that was the ostensible basis. If you want to discuss the fact that that basis was wrong, there is an article called Iraq Invasion - legitimacy. There is a whole article on International figures' positions on invasion of Iraq. In fact, there are many...too many in my view...for you to make contribute the information that you desire. However WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. Dawgknot 00:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Thank you for pointing out that these guys do not neutrality. In my eyes it is a shame that an article about what most people in the world see as an act of aggression is dominated by soldiers of the aggressor. 84.59.88.9 00:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)"
This is perfect example of your outrageous POV. You assume as fact your personal views. You have to accept the fact that many people disagree with you. I certainly accept that many people disagree with me. That doesn't mean that we can't work co-operative to write articles that are balanced and reflect content that documents the facts of the dispute. Yes, many people regard the invasion of an act of aggression. That doesn't mean that it was. Nor does that fact that many people think it was legal mean that it was, in fact, legal. Let's just stick with pointing out the dispute and move on. We are certainly not going to resolve that serious dispute here. And the Wiki will survive nicely if it doesn't attempt to do so.Dawgknot 00:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The question of legitimacy is pivotal to the invasion and needs to be addressed appropriately in the article. I never asked for more and you cannot deny that enumerating 10 year old resolutions while deleting the information that the final one did not pass and that the invasion was therefore charged as illegal is not neutral. 84.59.88.9 00:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source that shows that a final resolution was sought or even voted upon? Just becasue you think that the invasion was "therefore illegal" is a pointless debate. It has been included in the article that the Secretary genreral thought the invasion was illegal.Dawgknot 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Al Jazeera and Hotel shelling posted

I have taken a crack at summarizing these events for the article. It is more fully discussed as we have been doing in the Media article. Please take a look and let me know what your thoughts are. Dawgknot 04:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr on Arthur Travers Harris

I have blocked you for 8 hours for WP:3RR on Arthur Travers Harris. Please take the time out to review our policies. If you continue after the block, you will be blocked for longer. William M. Connolley 14:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC).