Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:11, 27 January 2007

Bill Slavick

If you are up for it, I added an article about Bill Slavick, an Independent Candidate for the Maine Senate. If you could take a look and help polish it, I would appreciate it. I am not good with sourcing. Most of the information comes directly from the candidate's own literature. mitchsensei

I will look in to it. Rangeley 16:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Who am I?

Since you bothered to ask a question, I guess I should answer. As far as you are concerned, I am someone that has seen your editing efforts as suppression of fact (which in fact they have been). I suspect you are a sockpuppet or paid propagandist of some kind, despite your stated interests (most or all of which I share). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.43.35.97 (talk • contribs)

Olympia Snow

Thanks for fixing the link, I was going back to it, and you had already fixed it. mitchsensei

No problem, Ive been keeping track of that article since the primaries. Rangeley 06:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Pope

...and keep up the good work keeping our current events up to date. I hope you stick around. ;) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:33, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Cantus

An admin needs to stop this guy. Please tell whoever you know about this user messing with the images of Pope Benedict. I've already reported it as vandalism in progress. Thanks for your help! -Husnock 03:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His Holiness

I won't change it again, but I still disagree with "His Holiness". People address George_W._Bush as "Mr. President..." -- however that's not how the page starts. It also doesn't start with "President..." It starts with "George Bush, blah blah President." I think something similar would be appropriate here. Quasipalm 05:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BoR

Hey...is this the same Rangeley from BoR? This is Y2A. It's really is a small internet. Jersey Devil 07:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

2003 invasion of Iraq

I'm watching that page and I think your edits are good. Merecat 04:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, its getting rather annoying (along with the Iraq War article). I wish there was a way to lock just that portion so people would stop messing with it. Rangeley 05:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Just now, I made a 3RR report on Gulliver. I think he's a vandal troll. Look at his edits. Merecat 05:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yea, he has made 4 edits that were all reverted in the article so far. Rangeley 05:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to drop in and say your reasoning persuaded me to do furthur research and I came across the actual resolution through a website THOMAS: Librabry of Congress from there you can look up "H.J.Res.114 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)" The terminology "War on Terror" is used 2x in the document. I have since changed my vote without removing the old one, not sure if I should. Just stated I changed the vote from the one below. I do not agree politically with it, but factually you were indeed correct. --Zer0faults 22:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, and rather then remove your first vote, just strike it out, I dont know how to show the code without it striking something out, so just edit this post to get it that way. Rangeley 22:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You can use <nowiki> ~~~~ etc.</nowiki> to show code. Añoranza 07:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing content from Misplaced Pages, as you did to 2003 invasion of Iraq. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Imroy 02:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC

If you haven't done so yet, please go to: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Merecat right away and add your perspective. Merecat 17:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

your voted needed

Please go here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). I voted for delete. You may also want to (if that's your preference). Merecat 08:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Removing NPOV tags is a gross offense of wikipedia policy. As are your repeated personal attacks. Stop immediately. De mortuis... 01:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing of the NPOV tag was unintentional, I was restoring content that was removed (from an old version) and did not think to add the tag. For this I apologize, however, I do not beleive I have ever personally attacked you or anyone else. If I have, please show me where so I can adjust my behavior. Rangeley 01:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, your second scalp. Two articles protected now to stop your edit wars , even in spite of a clear consensus against you: . Some of them broke The Three Revert Rule. Añoranza 07:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you use the IP number that duplicates your edits? Añoranza 08:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached, because the debate has not concluded. And remember, Misplaced Pages is not a Democracy. A consensus is not the results of a poll. Further, Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. You appear to be attempting to intimidate me because we disagree. I have come to this conclusion by your general attitude towards me, but I may be mistaken. Either way, I think we could both get farther if you lightened up a bit, perhaps not saying my every word is innuendo like De Mortuis did. I know what innuendo is, and this is not innuendo. To answer your final question, no, I do not use IP's to duplicate my edits. Rangeley 16:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You reverted again, this is obscene. I do not intimidate you, I just tell you that wikipedia does not work if single editors like you decide that all others are stupid and should be ignored. Añoranza 16:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not beleive you or anyone here to be stupid, however I do beleive that Misplaced Pages is meant to represent the truth. When a large group of people is working to silence this truth, this is no reason to give in. I do not beleive you stupid, but merely wrong on this contested issue. Rangeley 16:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I award you this picture for your 25th revert on a single issue, something I have never seen before, and I encourage you to take the middle monkey as an example, not only the other two. Añoranza 16:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I will continue my policy of speaking no evil. Also you will note that this incident began 12 days ago, on the 26th, roughly making it 2 reverts per day. Rangeley 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever thought about the possibility that the 3RR does not mean "please revert 2.99 times per day"? Añoranza 16:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it says no more than 3 a day, something I have tried to keep track of throughout this entire time. Rangeley 16:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Irony was not your strong subject at school, was it? Añoranza 16:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot recall ever taking a class on irony, nor am I in one now. So no, it is impossible for it to have, or currently be, my strong subject in school. Rangeley 16:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So maybe we try it with Socrates: Have you ever thought about what would happen with wikipedia if every user reverted 2.99 times per day on every page where she or he disagreed with consensus? Añoranza 17:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a mischaracterization to begin with. If everyone reverted 3 times a day edits that were done without base, we could have likely prevented the John Seigenthaler scandal - which came from a lack of reverting a false edit. There is no consensus in this issue. A preliminary poll, even when concluded, is not a consensus. This poll is not even finished. Consensus? Hardly. Rangeley 17:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

We are getting closer. Have you ever thought what would happen if everyone would just edit with the attitude "even if many are against me I am for sure the one who knows best and can decide on my own which edits have a base"? Have you ever thought what would happen if all discussions were ignored until all sides give in that there is a consensus, including sides which generally think that what others do is without base? Have you ever thought how in such a wikipedia a consensus could ever be reached and how much time would be lost? Añoranza 17:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Those who are right should never give up merely because the side that is incorrect has, at this time, more people. Obviously if everyone merely assumed themselves right, we would get nowhere. But I am not merely assuming I am right. After debating for such a long time, I am more sure than ever that it is a part of the campaign. Can you say the same? Are you more sure than ever that it was not started as part of this campaign, or are you just banking on the fact that you have more people on your side? Rangeley 17:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Who do you think sees clearer, those who make most edits or those who just think calmly? As the other side keeps telling you you are wrong, have you thought about the possibility that we are already getting nowhere with edit wars? After so many edits you still have not gotten the point that the debate is not about what the US government says what the Iraq war is but what it should be neutrally described like in an encyclopedia? Añoranza 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been calm throughout this entire 'edit war' as you call it, and have not resorted to calling anyone names, or claiming anyone suffers from a mental illness. Most certainly we are getting nowhere when the page is merely reverted on no basis, something that others have frequently done. I agree 100% that we are not, as an encyclopedia, aiming to present everything any government states as fact. However, I understand that when a government begins a program, or campaign, and then carries out different things under these programs or campaigns, it is not biased or POV to recognize that the actions are part of these wider programs or campaigns. It is not POV to recognize the rounding up of Jews and the concentration camps are linked. They were part of a Nazi program, in which many different things were carried out. Most people today call it the holocaust. When you look at each thing seperately, you fail to see the intent behind it, and you might get the idea that it was a mere coincidence that the events happened. But they were carried out under the same program, as such, today we can recognize the true scope of the destruction.

In this issue, the US Government and allies began a campaign, under which different things are being carried out. When you put them together, as they should be, you understand the true scope of them, rather then beleiving that its a mere coincidence that they happened at a close time. They cannot be looked at seperately, because they were carried out under the same campaign. It is our job, as an encyclopedia, to recognize this. Rangeley 17:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If you refuse to accept anything dozens of others tell you does it really mean their edits are without base? If the Nazis' term Endlösung der Judenfrage (final solution of the Jewish question) had been popular at the time should an encyclopedia have used it without quotation marks or comment as captions and tagged it on dozens of articles? Añoranza 18:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

We can deal with the name, and whether or not it should have quotes, after this one part is settled. Do you agree with me on my point, that it is neither POV or biased to recognize that the different components were part of the campaign they named Endlösung der Judenfrage, which most of us call the Holocaust? Rangeley 18:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Progress, wow. It should have quotes at least. Cool. And we can deal with the name. Great. That is all I ever wanted. Dealing with you seems rather tedious though. But there is something good in everyone. I agree that rounding up and concentration camps were part of the campaign the Nazis called Endlösung. A term equally inappropriate for wikipedia template titles or captions as "war on terror" as both are inherently not neutral and widely criticized. Añoranza 23:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so if that is settled, then we now agree that it is not POV or biased to recognize the Iraq War as part of the conflict in question. Now, if we are to analyze it, the name Holocaust portrays a POV, and will always create negative imagery. So the reason we use this name is not because it is perfectly neutral, but rather that it has become the common word for the event. The War on Terror is no different. It portrays a POV, however this is as much an issue as it is with the holocaust, or the new deal, and a great many other things. For instance, Christianity. The name, Christian, means follower of Christ. But the problem lies in that Christ is not Jesus's last name, but rather, it is the term for 'messiah' or 'savior.' Some people do not think Jesus is the savior/messiah. Does that mean we cannot use the term Christianity? No, it does not. When Misplaced Pages uses the term Christian or Christianity, it is not saying it to take a point of view that Jesus was infact the savior, but rather it is recognizing that Christian and Christianity are the most commonly used terms for the followers, and the religion itself. Again, the reason we use these terms here is not because they are perfectly neutral, but instead because they are the most common terms for their respective things. This, too, is why we use the name War on Terror as the conflict in question. When Misplaced Pages uses this term, it is not taking the POV that the war is right, but rather, it is recognizing that this is the most commonly used term to apply to the conflict. This is not POV. Rangeley 00:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust portrays the POV that what was done to the jews was a disaster or catastrophe. Given that courts decided that there was a genocide and a crime against humanity this POV is widely accepted. The POV that the Iraq war was on terror is not. Thus, using a propaganda term that implies exactly this is unacceptable. And please stop telling me that the Iraq war is most commonly called part of a war on terror. An overwhelming majority of the part of the world population that is aware of it would not agree. And even if it was the most commonly used term, should the article penis become a redirect to willy if it was found out that the latter was used more frequently? Añoranza 00:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

But its POV just the same, no? Again, dont muddy the issue. It has been agreed that the Iraq War is part of the campaign, no disputing this. The press, and a majority of english speaking individuals refer to this conflict as the War on Terror. Iraq War = Part of Campaign. Campaign = War on Terrorism. Therefore, Iraq War = Part of War on Terrorism. Its simple logic. Rangeley 02:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not the same. As I wrote a dozen times now, the term is not universally accepted but clearly favors one side and is heavily criticized by many. Show me ten pages where holocaust is put in quotation marks in the same way. The majority of English speaking individuals are not American neocons, and even if they were, it would still violate NPOV to use their propaganda in captions and template titles. Añoranza 10:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverts without even a summary are not helpful

Stop it! Añoranza 23:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I was under the assumption that vandalism was not helpful. I know you have an issue with the term. But here is your problem. 1. No consensus exists stating that the Waziristan War is not part of the war on terror, in fact, your own argument in previous places, that the War on Terror is against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, should make it clearer than anything in your mind that it is indeed a part of it. 2. Questions of POV go on the article in question, not everwhere else. For instance, if the article on George W. Bush were of questionable POV, such template would be placed on the article itself. Not in every article linking to it as something in (parenthesis).

I couldnt easilly fit that in a summary, but I thank you for coming to me so that now we are both on the same page. Rangeley 01:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't fit is the lamest excuse I have ever heard for not writing a summary. Summary means summarized. Pointing out that a term is criticized is not vandalism. Añoranza 00:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is not vandalism to place an NPOV notice on the page itself. But putting it in parenthesis after it is linked to is vandalism. Rangeley 01:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I just tried to make it as small and specifica as possible. It is ridiculous to post an NPOV tag on a whole article just for one phrase. Your definition of vandalism ignores wiki rules. Añoranza 01:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats not what I said you should do. An NPOV tag should be placed at the War on Terrorism page as thats the article in question. But just like we dont say George W. Bush (this article is locked due to vandalism) or Thursday (this article is featured), we do not put (this term's neutrality is disputed) after any disputed term when it is linked to. Rangeley 02:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article "War on terror" is not disputed by me. I dispute that using the propaganda term without quotation marks and a comment as a header elsewhere is neutral. Añoranza 08:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As Rangeley pointed out adding (this term is disputed) after every single mentioning of "war on terror" is quite inappropriate for the reasons he has mentioned above. Also if you feel the term is propaganda and should be used in a certain way, then that is a discussion best left for the page where the term is linking to, not every page the term appears on. Having 8 discussions all taking place on the same topic is not efficient as centralizing that discussion to the war on terror page. Also please see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view as to what POV tags are, and how you are leaving commentary, not a tag. --Zer0faults 14:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As I already explained above, the appropriateness of a propaganda term in an article can only be discussed in that article. It is an entirely different question whether a propaganda term should be used without quotation marks and comment in an article about something else or whether there should be an article about the term. I see no way to add the tag into the box and I regard it as inappropriate to add an NPOV tag to the whole article if only one term is disputed. Añoranza 18:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, just because you "regard it as inappropriate" does not change the Wiki Policy which is linked above. Please follow the appropriate using of POV tags as stated in the policy article. Thank you --Zer0faults 13:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As you know very well, I am not the only one who regards propaganda terms inappropriate in such cases, and NPOV tags should be as specific as possible, otherwise the reader has not much benefit. Añoranza 10:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are still arguing this after you have found the correct tags, which means you were using the wrong tag before. I agree they should be specific, which is why they have tags that accomplish that, only you asserted that the whole article needed to be tagged, and then you went ahead and did it. Noone todl you too, in your haste to tag the topic, perhaps you just skipped over the correct tags. I am glad you found the correct ones, if I can be of any other help, please use my talk page and not poor Rangeley's --Zer0faults 11:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you do me a favour

Please spreading dirty lies that Referendum won,because it far from over unofficial results vary from 54-46 to 55.5-44.5 but it seems like croocked dirty independists failed,so please dont be saying its over until 10 am when we will get official results.Thank you very muchDzoni

I know that this is obviously a personal issue for many people, and I have reverted several edits made by those stating that they are now independant. However, this is not because I beleive the projections to be wrong, but instead because regardless of whether it has won or not, the two nations will remain together until they officially seperate. When and if this happens, that is when we should state Montenegro as its own nation. So again, if I have offended anyone it was completely unintentional. Rangeley 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason I spoke to you is this sentence :"Likewise, while this referendum has been won by the independence movement, it has not yet been put into action."

I just wanted to point out to you that "this referendum has not been won" and with Gods will,if results stay as they are,referendum lost,but your sentence presumed its all over and thats why I spoke to you.You should be carefull,because just a couple of words can offend people.Thank you Dzoni

Response

Although I feel multi-ethnic states and unity are preferable to division amongst ethnic lines I also acknowledge that people have to be pragmatic and take things as relevant to the situation they face. Western Sahara and Kurdistan are currently based in oppresive areas where the people are punished and would be better protected if independent yet this is not the case for Serbia and Montenegro. Ultimately my dream would be to see the world unified in one state but I accept that is extremely unlikely and at the moment I look at things in relative terms. Horses In The Sky

United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 _t 01:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - U.S. FAC

Hi,

Welcome Back

Did not want to edit the WOT page while you seemed to be on vacation. I see you have been made aware of the situation with Anoranza, I have a RfC open against me now, one filed after the AN/I post I see you found. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Zer0faults If you do not want to get involved I completely understand as things have escalated since you were last editing, even Nescio is choosing not to get involved. --zero faults 01:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is getting pretty tiring how they personally target people like that... Rangeley 02:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I have to agree, Mr. Tibbs even tried to get people to post by asserting I was merecat, however it failed as the person must have seen the RFCU they added me to that showed I was not. I am trying to get an admin to look at the RfC and let me know if Mr. Tibbs can even certify it as he has had a bad faith history with me before and wasn't involved in the dispute in the first place. He has even gone on to posting the RfC information on articles that are unrelated to the dispute where I have voted for or against something, another bad faith attempt. Perhaps they are starting to realize they are the only ones who think I am a bad editor, all that effort and they have only got one user to agree with them and he is saying its because I am a sockpuppet and acknowledges he will keep accusing me of it regardless of what RFCU states. I think that is a situation that may have to be taken to admins as well. --zero faults 10:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Odd

I'm not sure why it would be doing that. You might have more luck asking on IRC or the help desk, since there are probably some more technically-skilled people there. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Iraq and the War on Terrorism

Thanks for the heads up. Rmt2m 16:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to write. KevinPuj 20:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Careful

You should be careful posting identical messages to lots of talk pages about "votes". First of all, we don't have votes here, and it's not very cool to encourage the idea that we do. Secondly, people get blocked for what we call "Internal spamming" regularly. Please don't try to sway the appearance of consensus by inviting groups of people with a certain POV to discussions. -GTBacchus 00:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I will stop, and I myself have stated before that a numerical majority is not a consensus. I am however interested in getting the strongest arguments possible on an issue, in hopes of finally ending the debate. Rangeley 00:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A better way to get the best arguments is to announce the poll (and call it a "straw poll", not a "vote") at places like WP:VP and the talk pages of related articles. Targeting individual users is what tends to get frowned upon. -GTBacchus 00:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I will post something about it at the Village Pump now. Rangeley 00:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Um... I guess it might be a good idea to change those messages from "vote" to "straw poll". I understand that it was an honest mistake, and I have no reason to doubt your good faith, so please don't worry about it too much. Still, "straw poll" does give quite a different impression, much closer to what actually goes on here. -GTBacchus 00:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There, all are replaced with "Misplaced Pages:WOT has opened its straw poll, and is open to discussion," a vaguely more accurate description. Rangeley 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that; I appreciate your consideration. -GTBacchus 01:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

regarding WOT talk

It may not be harmful to put all of the discussion on the talk page, will keep voting page cleaner and allow for more open discussion in that location. Will also remove Hipocrites accusations that its a political discussino as talk pages are not under WP:V WP:NPOV etc. --zero faults 15:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the move would be quite messy. Rangeley 15:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Info Box on Iraq War

Just wondering why you took out the "US wounded" number and then changed your mind. Right now I'm of the mind to keep the wounded number out until/unless we find wounded numbers for all groups. Just curious about your change in tack.Publicus 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My objection was it not being a standard in other wars infoboxes to show wounded. After I realized it was in other infoboxes, I reverted my edit. Since Im in several large debates already (Misplaced Pages talk:WOT), I just wanted to limit the amount of things I would have to check and respond to, being a lazy person that I am. So my reversion is not because I think it should be placed there, but instead that my original basis for removing it was shown to be wrong. Rangeley 16:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Disruption

You should consider this your final warning. Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a point, like you did here. It is a violation of our policies, and can result in a block. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a point, you linked to a page in the infobox that was irrelevant and should not have been placed there. I would ask you not to threaten me with being banned without base again, or you yourself may be seen as disrupting wikipedia. Rangeley 18:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Accidents happen

Rangeley, I know you didn't delete my reply on purpose - you were clearly doing a major overhaul of some kind at the time. I really didn't mean anything more threatening than "let's all be careful" in my edit summary. -GTBacchus 21:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, thats good to know. Also, can anything be done about Nomen Nescio's editing? He keeps changing the points at the start of the article to misrepresent what it is addressing. Rangeley 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I find this editing after the fact to be disruptive, people have already voted, over 20 so far, to change the points now are wrong. I think if he has issues he should bring them up perhaps in another location or on the talk page. The problem I have is he never lays out his point, its kind of a game as he jumps from one point to another till you give up. I wish he would just say my reasons are XYZ then let people debate those points. He doesn't even answer why he thinks US went to war, how are people suppose to help include everyone ideas when they do not say their idea? --zero faults 22:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

To me it shows the true argument against the one proposed: Nothing. Rangeley 22:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would not harm to handle kizzles issue now, it does not seem to go against anyone else who voted and may help make a concensus since he is one of the people most disputing it, not only that but it may help other users accept it as well. A concensus means we all agree, not that they all agree with us. I think its a mutually beneficial way of stating it. --zero faults 22:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I just posted my list of preferences of how to handle the name. Rangeley 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I left early because I was dead tired, how did things go with finding a middle ground with kizzle? I know they wanted quotation marks, which way did the discussion head to? --zero faults 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle then wanted to call it The Bush Administrations Global War on Terrorism, but I said this doesnt represent the fact that Bush and his cabinet is not the only party involved. I asked if Kizzle would accept the Global/Overview compromise, and didnt get a response yet. So, didnt really get anywhere. Rangeley 16:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you see what Nomen is trying to add now? He took the previous polls about the infobox and is attempting to say they were about the larger issue. Not only that but he is trying to say that by stating WMD as a main reason, that those people excluded terrorists as a reason ... I dont even know what to say to somethnig like that. As for Kizzle hopefully we can all reach a good middleground as I really am hopnig to build a workable concensus. Sorry been busy at work and dealing with Nomen edits, he has admitted that Iraq had terrorism links finally, the rest is just opinion and conspiracy theories like the war being over oil. Also keeping my eye on the RFAr on User:Añoranza has been keeping my hands full. --zero faults 19:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that all sounds pretty good to me. GTBacchus should be on before too long again, he can help with the consensus building too. Rangeley 20:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Hi, I've been caught up in other stuff and missed most of the above thread. I think the best way to demonstrate that you've got consensus is to edit the page, and it sticks. It's not really necessary to say any magic words or cut a ribbon with a pair of golden scissors or something. Here's one thing to do, though: start a clean section at the talk page of Iraq War. State really clearly what edit you feel the consensus has settled on. Allow people one last chance to comment about that particular edit. A good way to anticipate any objections is to already have the discussion in the text about the problems inherent in using the name "The War on Terrorism" while talking about the Iraq War. If this really is the solution that most or all of us can agree upon, that should be apparent. Who's the main objector at this point - Nescio? I could have a word with him, too, if you think that might help get us all on the same page... -GTBacchus 00:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he has been the most vocal opponent in discussion, and it would be quite helpful if you spoke with him. Rangeley 00:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I would give you a barnstar or wikistar thingy, but I have no clue how they work. So I instead say great work thus far. --zero faults 12:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Same to you, its certainly been quite the journey to get that recognized. I was thinking about that War on Terrorism project that you mentioned earlier, do you think we should set it up now? Since there isnt anything standing in the way from covering it correctly, it seems like the next place to go. Rangeley 12:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I already signed up, just need a todo list. I am already working no one article now. As for the Iraq War article, the source is using numbers from the PDF source I had provided. The numbers she is quoting include terrorists and insurgents jailed, the about.com article just misquoted the source. The PDF is the actual document, Iraq Index. That is why I added Insurgents killed or jailed and included terrorists, the Iraq Index counts terrorists and insurgents together. --zero faults 14:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I didnt know what that source was, since the original 55,000 number was added by me from the source I put up. Rangeley 14:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note on Nescio's talk page, and I'm looking forward to chatting with him. So, are you guys starting a WikiProject on the War on Terrorism? Can I help? I'm a bit interested in political WikiProjects just now - they seem like a better way to network than by user category. -GTBacchus 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I intended to, and made one . However, it seems that Kirill Lokshin opposes it , and I am just so tired of people thinking I am out to cause trouble that I dont want to even defend it. Rangeley 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see... "War on Terrorism task force" is a poor choice of name, I'll give them that. One has to be careful setting up a WikiProject about politics, but it can be done. -GTBacchus 16:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can figure out how to do it that would be great. Rangeley 16:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to help with it, but I'd like to see this current issue sorted out first. I don't think Krill was too inspired by claims of consensus on the Iraq War article, let's see if that's still sticking after a week. Meanwhile, is there a particular set of article categories that you see as falling under the "War on Terrorism" banner? Is there a better phrase to use in the name of the project than "War on Terrorism," which we've seen in somewhat problematic? -GTBacchus 16:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I invisioned that all of the articles in the war on terrorism template would be included. Other things, like operations in the wars, laws passed (patriot act etc) or important people too. For a name, I dont really know. Would quotes around it work? Rangeley 16:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right? How much mileage can we get out of the quotation marks trick? Here, check this out:

• Category:Anti-Terrorism Policy of the United States (40 articles)
  • Category:2003 Iraq conflict (104 articles)
    • 13 subcategories
  • Category:Al-Qaeda (30 articles)
    • 3 subcategories
  • Category:Al-Qaeda members (88 articles)
    • 1 subcategory
  • Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees (447 articles)
  • Category:Guantanamo attorneys (24 articles)
  • Category:Jemaah Islamiyah (18 articles)
  • Category:People convicted on terrorism charges (20 articles)
    • 2 subcategories
  • Category:Taliban (14 articles)
  • Category:Terrorism in Indonesia (6 articles)
    • 1 subcategory
  • Category:Terrorism in the United States (3 articles)
    • 3 subcategories
  • Category:Terrorist incidents in the 1990s (49 articles)
  • Category:Terrorists (56 articles)
    • 3 subcategories
  • Category:USA PATRIOT Act (19 articles)
  • Category:United States federal defense and national security legislation (15 articles)
    • 1 subcategory

Ok, so there's a category tree, rooted at "Anti-Terrorism policy of the United States. This area of Misplaced Pages is clearly a mess. The really obvious problems, evident before looking at any articles, are in the category structure, how there are categories that are parents of their own siblings - that's not right. Anyway, for a WikiProject, I'd suggest first defining its scope. Just which of these categories would you include in your projects purview, and which ones would you leave out? -GTBacchus 16:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, just looking at that stuff, it all seems like it could potentially be involved. Its hard to tell what terrorist attacks impacted poliy and what did not. Stuff like the USS Cole bombing or WTC 1993 likely did, and perhaps even IRA stuff in England impacted their strong reaction to terror since they dealt with it before. Rangeley 16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if that's the chunk you're willing to bite off (you're brave!), then why not title the project something like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject United States anti-terrorism policy? There are some serious problems in that little section of category tree... -GTBacchus 16:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it isnt strictly the US, its the whole "War on Terrorism." Rangeley 16:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

See, I think that being married to that phrase is a bad idea. It drips with instant controvery, since it's considered by many to be a particularly poinsonous piece of propaganda. On the other hand, "US anti-terrorism policy" isn't much better. Hmmm... -GTBacchus 16:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What about "Anti-Terrorism Policy" in general? So long as this can include people who are infact terrorists, or events that are terrorist attacks, Id be fine with it. This would be better suited out of the military history umbrella though. Rangeley 16:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I would feel comfortable out from under that umbrella. Some overlap wouldn't hurt, but topics like the USA PATRIOT Act aren't really military history. So, you want a project whose scope is terrorism, and nations' responses to it? -GTBacchus 17:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good. Rangeley 17:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism? -GTBacchus 17:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, can I just move the current project there, or is there some official way I have to go about it? Rangeley 17:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Um.... let's take small steps. It's easy to give the impression of bias if we aren't careful, as you've seen. If the scope is to be Terrorism and counter-terrorism, that's pretty big. I'd want to poke at that for a while from a high altitude, playing with the categories and whatnot, until I had a good feel for just how big a chunk of encyclopedia we're dealing with here. Category:Terrorism and all of its subcategories... Yeah, go ahead and move the page; the old content is good to start from, and there's only a couple people watching that page so far, right? You want to be careful that you don't find ways to attract participants of a particular POV, or the project could just get taken to MfD pretty quickly. -GTBacchus 17:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yea, my category spamming days have ended. As only 2 people are in the project so far, I cant imagine there are any more than that watching it. You are also invited into it if you are interested. Rangeley 17:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a massive project to get involved with, what exactly are we doing? I have not been part of a wikiproject before. --zero faults 18:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Massive, yes. I'm trying to get a sense now, putting a category tree together, of just how massive. I imagine, if you're sane, you'll want to refine the scope of the project at some point. I have some pretty good ideas about how these things work, but I'm no expert on WikiProjects, and even less of an expert on terrorism. -GTBacchus 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Its just a way to organize efforts into cleaning up the area of terrorism and counter terrorism, including the war on terrorism campaign. Its the same project as before, only with a title that is less likely to cause problems. Rangeley 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no great sense of duty involved in starting a WikiProject. It's just a useful way to think about a whole collection of articles at once. Maybe I was wrong above about refining the scope. -GTBacchus 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

WOT task force

You might want to comment here; suffice it to say there are a number of questions about this putative group that need rather immediate answering. Kirill Lokshin 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Nescio

I have decided to no longer reply to this user anymore so he can cease his persecution claims. If I see something wrong, I will alert the user and not comment directly. I am tired of his antics of running to AN/I instead of discussing the situation with the community. I feel this users political opinion out weighs their ability to reach a concensus as whenever asked what would he be willing to accept or what he is asking for in return etc, he just responds that he is right and no matter how many people disagree with him, it doesnt matter. I leave you alone in your dealings with him, as I do not need the Wikidrama after all that happened with Anoranza. I have asked him to not reply to me, and in turn I will not reply to him. --zero faults 18:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that is a good idea for now. Rangeley 19:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd try to get more people to view the situation. I'm actually moving to another city this afternoon, and I won't be online as much as usual for a few days. Rather crummy timing, in this case. I do think that Nescio and Rkrichbaum have complaints that are more substantial than you might be recognizing. It's not remotely an open-and-shut issue. I have a lot of sympathy with arguments on both sides of this one.

Remember that dispute resolution offers several options, including Article Requests for Comment - have you tried one of those yet? If that fails, there's Requests for Mediation. I'll check in when I can. -GTBacchus 23:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see the complaints of Rkrichbaum, he feels the name implies something. I believe you have tried to explain the proper noun thing to him. However Nescio believes many of the things covered in Farenheit 911, and so political ideology will outweigh all else. I have asked him to tell me what he needs facts for and I will provide them. I did provide the facts for the one thing that could be factually proven, the other stuff was asking why other countries dont name the US terrorists, is not something I can provide facts for. He then stopped replying asking for more facts, so to me I am no longer dealing with him. Rkrichbaum seems to have a genuine issue, if it cannot be explained to him the difference in the naming conventions I am more then willing to attempt to budge and meet another point that would make him feel more comfortable with the name. --zero faults 00:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You may be right about Nescio. He seems kind of uncommunicative. I don't see this issue being completely resolved... this month, but we'll keep after it. It seems that you, Zer0faults, and Nescio have some animosity, or at least something less than affection? I'm sure he's a great guy, in the right setting, but he's locked into a pattern right now, and it involves you and Rangeley being wrong, in his mind. That's a tricky dynamic to break out of; I'll bet your avoiding direct communication with him for a little while isn't a bad idea. At some point, it is nice if we can all get on board the same train without derailing, but things take time... -GTBacchus 00:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats how it seems to me, he has pulled several reversals in arguments, at first claiming "even though Bush says it was in the WoT, we all know Saddam didnt have ties to terrorism" and then after we proved he did, it was "we all knew he had ties to terror, but Bush never said it was part of the WoT." With stuff like that, its pretty difficult to get anywhere. Hes done similar things with the RFC's, defending it when he edited ours, trying to get Zer0 blocked for editing his, and then similar things with polls, pointing to a 16-10 poll that went his way for a consensus, then claiming a 24-3 poll that didnt is not one (when neither poll means consensus). Animosity... perhaps, but more frustration than anything. Rangeley 00:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Before removing it

I was notified about that discussion, so I didn't have the chance to give my opinion. With all due respect, I'll follow what was said in each articles talk page. Esaborio 02:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I posted links to the discussion in every topic it was related to, including the tempates talk page . If you did not participate I am sorry, however the consensus can still be talked about, and I have indeed invited you to do so. Rangeley 02:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You posted the links AFTER the "consensus" was reached, therefore, I couldn't participate. Esaborio 03:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It was posted on the 18th, talks went on for 3 days after that. Noone is excluding you now however, what exactly is the issue you have with it? --zero faults 10:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding WOT

Hi,

For centralizing purposes, I have replied on my talk page. Best wishes, Xoloz 12:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

WOT template & Iraq War

All right, I'll stick to the current version of the WOT template. Esaborio 02:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If you still have concerns, you should still voice them. Rangeley 14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I feel the original version was more accurate. Esaborio 05:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Rangeley 14:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi There

Yes, that is correct. Rangeley 01:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC) What is correct?

I still have a problem with putting this in the title. I do understand though that this is a US-defined term--so if we have to use this Republican rhetorical device, can we at least label it "Part of the U.S. War on Terrorism" since that a better descriptor of the conflict.Publicus 13:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the consensus is still not found. Feel free to await the RFCF and what others, beside you, Zero and me, think of it. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I recommend you read the first two paragraphs (by me and GTBacchus), they explain why

After discussing the relationship between the Iraq War and the War on Terrorism, we have reached a consensus over how do deal with this at Misplaced Pages. As the "War on Terrorism" is a specific, defined campaign, waged by the USA and its allies, they have full ability to define it, and carry it out as they choose.

Hur? I edited the article called 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

Apparently you missed my goodbye, so I say it again. Don't bother addressing me because I have left this debate. Let me explain why. There started a debate whether the Iraq war is part of WOT and if it should say so in the infobox. You stated your case why you think it should. Many others told you why you were wrong. Your response? Simply restate the same argument. Again people correct you. Even 2 polls showed the majority was against having a controversial statement in the infobox. What do you do? Restate the same argument. Well 10 years, 5 films, and 7 novels later all those opposing your view have left and miraculously your POV is presented in this paragraph as consensus. No my friend, wearing out those with opposing views by ignoring every single argument they advance why you are wrong so they no longer wish to take part in any discussion with you is not consensus. It is reaching a POV statement through pestering away other views. Exactly why I stop, the fact you have the gall to present your POV as consensus says it all. Goodbye and feel delighted you get to make this article POV by being the most stubborn of all. Even more than I. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Is the "War on Terrorism" a proper noun? If so, who created it? What dictates what is within the realm of the proper noun "War on Terrorism"? --kizzle 05:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you check Religious War instead? Better read English with open mind!! Good luck!!! Larry Lawrence 23:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my spelling error there, meant to say "to" not "do." However, I am curious as to why you would even copy Nescio where he bowed out of discussion. What are your complaints on the consensus, though? Rangeley 00:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop

Do not comment on my talk page. You clearly fail to understand that selfproclaimed consensus is bad form. Especially since you POV has been heavily critized and called POV pushing on the same page you claim shows consensus. If you are capable to discuss facts and leave the monologues out of it others would appreciate that. I have already stated I refuse to continue talking to you since all you are interested in is blatant POV pushing. Nomen Nescio 13:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I know you and others have called it POV, all I ask is why is it POV. I am pretty sure that we have come up with a consensus that is solid, and certainly not POV because it recognizes that this campaign is able to be defined by its wagers. I do however know that someone might have thought of something I have not that, all I ask of you is to tell us why you object to the consensus. If you so strongly object to it, what you have to say must be heard. Why is it POV? Rangeley 13:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Rangeley,

I\'m sorry that I was unable to contribute to the poll (Misplaced Pages:WOT), however I\'ve been inactive a bit lately, and don\'t use wikipedia as much as I once did, even \"active\". Chooserr 18:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine, we reached a consensus on the issue here: which you are welcome to comment on. Rangeley 18:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Relating to Iraq War

I thought you had looked at this already— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.9.105.18 (talk • contribs)

Nope, but now I have voted. Rangeley 03:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Operation Summer Rain

Hello, there's been some discussion about Operation Summer Rain vs. Operation Summer Rains at Operation Summer Rain. 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 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Terrorism

Not sure if you seen that post on the talk page of the wikiproject we have been working on. Let me know what you think of it, it seems pretty organized and maybe a combined effort between the groups merging can help speed up its progression. --zero faults 16:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nato

What do you think about the WOT and NATO? Am I overdoing it? Nescio thinks NATO should not be noted, however I disagree with him. He removed the template for WOT from the NATO page on the basis that NATO is not involved with enough operations. However I noted they are involved with OEF-HOA OEF-A and Operation Active Endeavor. What is your opinion, you seem to give good advice. --zero faults 01:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the organization itself, as opposed to its members acting independantly, is enough to include it. Their participation is definately notable, I dont really see what sort of argument could put forth saying it isnt. Rangeley 01:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

His last edit summary "by your own admission it is a US war since only Bush gets to decide what is part of it, or are you now saying that all parties involved have a say, in that case, all parties see Iraq as not part of ." I just checked the War on Terrorism page and it does state, and has for sometime, that US and NATO and their allies choose, not just the US ... --zero faults 01:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• You reverted the other text, this is circular logic. Nomen Nescio 01:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

We can now conclude that the both of you insist WOT is not a US but a NATO campaign. That is allright with me, but if it is a NATO campaign Bush no longer has the last word on what is part of that campaign. Therefore the discussions in which you claimed authority since Bush said so, are null and void since Bush does not get to say anything. Further teaming up is not entirely civil behaviour. Nomen Nescio 01:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

How would the US being the sole determinant mean that other parties cannot participate? The USA can begin something as part of the WOT, and others can join in support. NATO, and other allies certainly have done this, and obviously are notable for this reason. Rangeley 01:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • Thank you Rangeley, I am not sure what this user was reading. Perhaps he was making assumptions. --zero faults 01:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what supported means! The current sentence clearly does not say NATO helps out. As it stands NATO is the prime contributor alongside the US, that statement is incorrect. Nomen Nescio 01:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are saying. If I wanted to raise $100 for my school so we could fund the school newspaper, I could launch a campaign called "Earn 100 dollars for the School Paper." I begin by baking cookies and selling them at a local store. The next day, the School group named "Literacy for America" announces they want to help, and I let them. I happen to be a member of this group lets say. The next day, several of my friends say that they want to help too by selling other things, I let them. It is correct to state that "Earn 100 dollars for the School Paper" was a campaign by Rangeley, Literacy for America, and other friends. This doesnt mean that I wasnt the sole determinant of what was and what was not in the campaign - infact it doesnt state who is the determinant at all. It merely states the participants.

Thats whats going on here, the opening paragraph states the participants, it doesnt venture into who defines the campaign at all. Rangeley 02:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You yourself repeatedly claimed that it is a US campaign and the US gets to decide what is and what is not part of it (remember your argument regarding Iraq!). Now suddenly confronted with that you disallow saying that NATO only supports. Make up your mind, either NATO is the initiator and decides, or it only supports. Feel free to review the current text where it says the US AND NATO initiated WOT. Nomen Nescio 13:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

NATO is not the initiator, I dont know what you are referring to because I have never said this. It was started by the USA. But just as my example up there, the USA is not the sole participant. It is a correct statement to say that it is a campaign by the USA, NATO, and other allies. Rangeley 13:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop harrassing me

Either restore all my deleted comments or leave it. As it is a large part of what I wrote disappeared, is repeatedly deleted, and even my comments on that are reverted by you. At best you are uncivil at worst you are harrassing me and I demand you stop this. Either allow all my comments or allow my protest to the blatant manipulation! Nomen Nescio 12:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You are the one removing your comments and replacing them with "Removed comment since editors are allowed to delete, alter and manipulate several commentys I placed on this page." You are vandalizing by doing this, especially because people have commented to your statements that you are removing. Noone is allowed to comment in the introduction, and certainly noone is allowed to change what the poll was about after people have voted. I am not harassing you remotely, you are simply choosing to make things very difficult for all of us. How else am I supposed to deal with someone who has reverted WOT 5 times in a 24 hour period, reverted the War on Terrorism 6 times in a 24 hour period , and reverted the WOT template 6 times in a 24 hour period - other than try and talk to them. You are outright edit warring, and further you are breaking many rules. I havent once reported you, and I have continually attempted to initiate a dialogue with you in which we can settle things. I know you probably dont like me, and I know that you most certainly dont like the Iraq War, but you must never let these things get in the way of working towards a greater good at Misplaced Pages. This stuff has gone on since April, wouldnt you agree its time to move on? GTBracchus wants you to answer his question about the proper noun statement he made at the Iraq War article. Talk with us, dont revert war. Rangeley 13:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• You and Zero have removed several comments I made. Please restore them
• You yourself have commented in the introduction, you remove my comments but leave your own, which clearly violate your believe that "Noone is allowed to comment in the introduction." As long as a large part of my contributions is absent you will have to accept that I can protest to that. As it stands you not only redact MY comments, you even redact my comments on your vandalism. I ask you for the last time: restore my entire contribution or allow my comments on your censoring my contributions. Nomen Nescio 13:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never commented in the introduction. And you act as though this is only a limitation placed on you, its not. Noone is allowed to discuss anything in the introduction, there is place set aside for discussion. And in this place, you continually vandalize by removing comments. Rangeley 13:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So why is my removal of your comments in the intro (NOTE: Consensus or super majority has been reached, .) not allowed. Please remove this comment in accordance to your own policy, and restore mine. Again, either ALL my comments are allowed or let it be! Nomen Nescio 13:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not a comment, it is noting that the discussion in that article has concluded. It links to the final statement explaining the conclusion that was reached. You, on the other hand, posted your own personal rebuttals to the arguments put forth. These are comments, and, while welcome in the areas for discussion, are unwelcome in the introduction area. Rangeley 13:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly by your own admission you posted an argument and beyond that, you start a poll and also get to interpret the result? Rather odd, especially since the statement was incorrect. However, my NOTE explaining that conclusion is premature is not allowed. Double standard? Have you restored the deleted comments and when will you be deleting your comment in the intro? Nomen Nescio 14:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Its premature? Are you implying that you have objections? If so, please state them. Honestly Nescio, saying "there is no consensus" is not an objection. GTBracchus stated this in response to what you last said: "Red herring. Let's stay focused on the important point here - WOT is a proper noun, being used as a label and not for the meanings of its component words, taken as common nouns. Whether US intelligence said or didn't say that Saddam had links to Mars doesn't affect that." Dont just tell me this is wrong, tell me why it is wrong. Stop claiming I have a double standard when I dont, stop claiming I am harassing you when I am not, stop revert warring, and stop rule breaking. Just respond to GTBracchus and get this over with. Its all here: , find where GTBrachhus states this and respond. Rangeley 14:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not repeat your arguments but read the numerous comments explaining this is POV. Have you removed your comment? If you deny me the right to place comments and repeatedly delete them I will be forced to make yet another edit out of protest. Even the last edit was manipulated by you. Why do you get to censor other peoples view? Is this not exactly why many said on the page it was a POV pushing poll? Nomen Nescio 14:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out, I do not know if you noticed, but your comments were moved to the bottom, the section titled dicussion as that is where the edit summary said you put it. You can see me edit before the revert, and then Rangeley's as well. Your comments were not deleted and are at the discussion section still. --zero faults 16:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to read a response to the statement by GTBracchus. --zero faults 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to his statement if you have an objection, if not consider the issue settled and you have just admitted that you have no argument against it. Its that simple, there is nothing more to it. Rangeley 15:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Cabal

We may have an opportunity to put this all to rest with Nescio. He is seeking mediation and maybe a cool headed 3rd party can help end all of this for once. Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Misplaced Pages:WOT --zero faults 20:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WOT

Of course there is. An unnecessarily long reference to the Iraq War. Esaborio 02:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I do not support proven lies. Esaborio 03:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What is a lie is that it IS part of the War on Terrorism. The rest in misinformation. Esaborio 03:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a US resolution, not a UN Security Council one, so of course it says what the US Government wants it to say: lies. Esaborio 03:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the truth. Esaborio 03:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A Government can lie to make a campaign seem to fit in with another, unrelated one. Have you read the "Project for the New American Century"? I have. The Iraq War was planned years ago. Esaborio 03:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. In what you described in your "hypothetical situation", unlike what happens with the War on Terrorism and the Iraq War, both programs refer to the same problem: poverty, whereas those two wars do not refer to terrorism. Only the first one does. The other is about money, or in toppling a dictator, at best. Esaborio 03:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is also against regimes who refuse to hand over terrorists that they harbour, when they are asked to, like the Taliban did. Esaborio 04:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant?! How convenient! That way the US can continue to lie to the world and attack other countries just for economic interests, no matter if their motives are proven to be lies. So basically you are saying that the War on Terrorism is a "blank check" for the US Government, right? Esaborio 04:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"We should recognize them as a part of the campaign because they are." Great argument... They are not, because the War on Terrorism is against terrorist organizations and regimes that refuse to hand terrorists over to proper authorities, and the Iraq War was against a regime that didn't refuse to hand over any terrorists. Esaborio 04:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And what terrorist groups was the US supposed to stop by invading Iraq? And when was Saddam asked to stop sponsoring terrorism, as the Taliban were? That is no War on Terrorism, that is an aggression war, since Iraq had done nothing to the US, neither directly nor indirectly. Esaborio 05:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The US does not have the authority to attack any state it conveniently considers to be a sponsor of terrorism. It requires a resolution by the UN Security Council to do so, as was the case with Afghanistan. Esaborio 05:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It was begun based on lies, to make it look like it was part of the War on Terrorism. Ironically, it IS terrorism itself: state terrorism. Esaborio 05:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What is a lie is that they were fighting terrorism, no matter what campaign it is said to be part of by the war hawks in Washington. And how can it be part of the War on Terrorism if the victims of the war are not sponsors of terrorism? That doesn't make any sense! It is like saying you are fighting drugs lords by killing cookie makers, because you see them as drug lords! Esaborio 05:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"It is because the US says so". That is your only argument. If it didn't begin to fight terrorists there, nor did it begin to fight a regime for harboring terrorists, by logic it CANNOT be part of a War on Terrorism. Esaborio 06:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I just don't know of any proofs presented by the US to back that claim. Esaborio 06:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It does matter, because a war against innocent people isn't a War on Terrorism, it IS terrorism. The US shouldn't attack without any proof of links to terrorism. Esaborio 06:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How can the inexistence of links to terrorism be irrelevant for a War on TERRORISM?! The term looses all of its meaning if you fight something that isn't terrorism under in its name. Esaborio 06:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And where are it's proofs? Esaborio 06:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So it is a war against anyone the US doesn't like, right? It is not about terrorism at all now... Esaborio 07:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

For considering Iraq a state sponsor of terror. Esaborio 07:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, then it is a war against anyone the US doesn't like. Your example is absurd, because beauty is subjective, while being a terrorist is objective. To call someone a terrorist you must back up your words with facts. Esaborio 07:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, being objective, there are two different campaings: one against terrorists in some places, and another which began against innocent people in Iraq. Esaborio 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That is no proof it sponsored terrorism. Esaborio 07:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on lies... Esaborio 07:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It matters, because logic dictates you can't fight one thing in the name of fighting another. Otherwise, this fight looses it's meaning. Esaborio 07:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the world was involved in some way in both World Wars, in the Cold War the US and the USSR never fought, and the War of 1812 began that year, hence their names. And there was no way they could have known during World War I that it wasn't going to end all wars. On the other hand, the US had the resources to find out before beginning the War on Terrorism which countries supported terrorism, via REAL intelligence. Esaborio 07:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the case here, because since the beginning they knew who was sponsoring terrorism and who wasn't. The US shoudn't label a campaign as part of the War on Terrorism when there is no evidence whatsoever of sponsorship of terrorism. Esaborio 08:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a no, indeed. Esaborio 08:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not without sufficient proofs. It is relevant because they never proved their sponsorship of terrorism. And what I admitted is that US lied about the issue. Esaborio 05:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, they lied about saying it sponsored terrorism. A War on Terrorism should be fought against terrorist organizations and proven terrorist-sponsoring states. It was never proven that Iraq sponsored terrorism, the US just said it did, to justify their aggression. Where is their evidence? Esaborio 04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I never addressed it?! Please see above. Esaborio 06:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

See my 04:54, 8 July 2006 reply. Esaborio 06:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Then read it again and again until you understand it. And stop wasting my time! Esaborio 06:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I answered your two "legitimate questions", and I explained why I removed that information after your revert, yet you keep asking. THAT is making me waste my time. Esaborio 06:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

STOP WASTING MY TIME! I told you to read my answer until you get it, and if you don't, too bad! Esaborio 06:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, what you don't understand is my answer, so I'll say this again: READ IT AND READ IT AND READ IT! Esaborio 06:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you don't get (or just don't like) my answer, but I won't waste my time repeating myself. Esaborio 06:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What is really ludicrous is your interpretations of my answers. I haven't admitted such a thing, and never will, because I despise lies. The only thing you are right about is that the dabate is over. Esaborio 07:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What is a lie? Read my answers again, dammit! Esaborio 07:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Read my answers again...! Esaborio 07:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Read my answers again... Esaborio 07:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

source

the source for the dead is in the article. However, wounded is imposible to varyfy and it is a low estimate.--Spoil29 17:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

MedCab: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Misplaced Pages:WOT

IN THE MEDIATION CABAL; Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Misplaced Pages: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

2006 Arab-Israeli War

I replaced it with Arab-Israeli conflict because 2006 Arab-Israeli War is up for deletion, as no such event exists. See the talk on the page for more details, but essentially, we can't create that name if there is little or no usage in the mainstream press. Cheers, Tewfik 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		I hereby grant you this barnstar for your diligent editorial work on all of the articles concerning the 2006 Arab-Israeli War. Pifactorial 22:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Rangeley 01:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Image uploads

Hi. I would like to assume good faith. But your use of HTML comments on image uploads, as in this image, looks very much like an attempt to foil our image cleanup bots. It may be true that a "fair use" defense against copyright infringement would work for this and other images you have uploaded, but we need a real fair use rationale for each one, not a HTML comment. See Misplaced Pages:Image description page for what Misplaced Pages expects from a "fair use rationale", and Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria for the handling of unfree content at Misplaced Pages. Jkelly 00:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just replicated the method that El_C used on this: , which was also from the IDF website. As he was an admin, I figured he knew what he was doing. Rangeley 00:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. I'll ask User:El C to provide real rationales as well. Thanks for explaining. Jkelly 01:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please visit the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page

The page does not currently meet wikipedia standards. It is both too long and far too POV to be considered a quality article. I have been working on a rewrite but have encountered resistance from an editor who does not like the "POV shift" of my rewrite. You can read the latest version (draft) of the rewrite on my sandbox. The article Talk page discusses several of the issues. I have invited two people to act as informal mediators. One of them was chased off by the intransigent editor who opposes the POV shift. The second editor said he thought the debate "was dead in the water." That is hardly the position needed for someone to act as a mediator. I would appreciate you taking a look. RonCram 04:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nescio RfC

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Nescio Dropping this on your page to review as you were involved in the disputes. --zero faults 13:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sneakiness

My edit and the summary was intended for the "Donald Ferrone" thing, and your edit got inadvertently caught in the middle. Sorry about that. Zocky | picture popups 06:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

you are correct. thanks for restoring the map

I was about to self revert Zeq 07:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Image

Any claim of POV here is ridiculous, a point which you've made sufficiently clear in extensive discussion on talk. While it may be more relevant to have a slightly more active picture, being as we have no access to one at the moment, this is certainly a good choice. Keep up the good work, Tewfik 16:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the same is true of you. How would you feel about removing the POV tag? I haven't seen any recent discussion on talk, nor noted any specifically disputed passages. Tewfik 17:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis#I.27ve_added_Iran

Could you please add your further comment at 2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis#I.27ve_added_Iran. I'm about to add Iran back, but I want your opinion first Hello32020 17:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Link is actually Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis#I.27ve_added_Iran.

Learn to read

This is my resposne to you both in my talk page and in the talk page of the 2006 Lebanon-Israel crisis.

"Rangley, others have said and I agree: you have displayed a lack of good faith and have an attitude. For example, you seem to have misread me. In my original message I argued not about NPOV, which is next to impossible to achieve in a picture (unless we do a composite which is ugly), but for newsworthyness. My message is there for all to read. What I didn't like about the 3 binocular picture is that it is a propaganda picture with no news value at all, besides being bland and boring. Its three guys with binos, nothing special. Now the current picture with the IDF artillery piece its a better one, but I hope we can find something more human, or that conveys the human aspect of warfare better. That is my sole arguement, and you are setting a strawman by arguing against something I havent argued for.--Cerejota 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC) "

I never argued pictures had to be NPOV. Learn to read and have some more good faith. --Cerejota 20:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I noticed you reverted this page with the edit summary "revert vandalism". I don't think the other user's edits qualify as vandalism, since vandalism is editing that's done with the intention of reducing the quality of the article, and the other person made that edit because he believes the article is better the other way. He may be wrong, but this is a content dispute, not a case of vandalism. It's important to civility not to simply label edits you disagree with as vandalism. --Mr. Billion 21:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In the town I live in there was someone who painted a building downtown with quite the artistic image, it dealt with wanting troops to come home from Iraq if I recall correctly. He did it because, in his mind, the building needed it. He didnt do it to lower the quality of the building, but to raise it. But it did lower its quality, and it was still vandalism. It was later removed. I suppose thats the difference between my definition of yours, I beleive people can vandalise even when they have best intentions at heart. I beleive Esaborio is convinced in his mind that he is right, however he refuses to discuss and simply reverts. I will call that what it is, Vandalism. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting story, but a key distinction is that the person you mention was (I assume) not supposed to paint that mural, and did so without the building owner's permission. Randomly repainting buildings is generally illegal. Editing Misplaced Pages articles is not.
Review Misplaced Pages: Vandalism. "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." Simply making edits with which you disagree is not vandalism. Please don't use the phrase "vandalism" to denigrate people with whom you disagree. --Mr. Billion

It is generally considered against the rules to continuously revert things without explaining why. I suppose this could be equated to the individual asking the owner of the store if they could paint the building. While getting permission is not exactly the same as explaining why you are persistently reverting, it is quite similar. I opened a dialogue with Esaborio earlier this month, and after a certain point he ceased to raise new points and continuously said "read my post again," which you can find somewhere above this section. So to clarify, I do not consider every edit for which I disagree to be vandalism, that is just silly. But when someone leaves the discussion table and reverts without explanation, 3 times I beleive over the past few days, I do consider it to be a vandalistic, though possibly well intentioned, edit. But as Misplaced Pages seems to disagree on terminology, I will not label such things as vandalism any further due to the obvious confusion that it creates. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, thanks. --Mr. Billion 00:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Conflict Temp cleanup

I was trying to remove the double citation of "CNN4" from the "casualties2" section of the template and was met with the whole thing coming apart. Want to take a look and see if you have better luck? Thanks, Tewfik 21:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess so. If you have some time though, try to remove the second one instead and preview. The entire thing comes apart. I tried playing with it a bit to see what was causing that effect but couldn't isolate the responsible markup. Tewfik 21:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, check this diff - I'm not sure what happened but it look like content got cut off...Tewfik 21:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

IRGC

it's is not active participant in conflict.nor has any direct role in in suppling the hezbollah with arms.

Saddam/al-Qaeda

i noticed you put the pov tag on the article. could you please participate in the ongoing debate about a rewrite. your input could be valuable. thanks. Anthonymendoza 21:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

RfAr involving Zero

Apparently mediation does not improve the current conflict I have with this user. 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 11:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

This picture is POV because it shows only Israeli attack and not Hezbollah--Shrike 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So why not post Hizballah katuasha launchers?--Shrike 11:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

War on Terrorism

Hello. See here: . Esaborio 22:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you ask questions you already know the answers for? Remeber this discussion: ?

No, you failed to understand reasons. I have already explained my motives, sorry if you just don't like them for being biassed. And what "unwillingness" are you talking about? I explained countless times to you what you have asked answers for. Again, sorry if you don't like them, but they are here: . Esaborio 22:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have explained it to you countless times. I am sorry if you "fail to understand" my explanations. Your atttitude just shows how biassed you are on the issue. Esaborio 22:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Like this: ? Esaborio 22:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Denying my explanation won't make it dissapear, so stop your childish behavior try to understand them instead of just pretending they aren't there. Esaborio 22:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but it will be the last time: "And how can it be part of the War on Terrorism if the victims of the war are not sponsors of terrorism? That doesn't make any sense! It is like saying you are fighting drugs lords by killing cookie makers, because you see them as drug lords!" I posted that on 6 July 2006, at 05:54. Esaborio 23:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

See above. Their definition can't be based on nothing. Esaborio 23:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My answer is there, you just don't like it. You are completely biassed... Esaborio 23:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is the dictionary's. Esaborio 23:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I did provide it time and again, but since instead of (trying to) refute it you are unwilling to admit that I provided an explanation, I just won't waste my time playing your games anymore. Good bye. Esaborio 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

Blindly reverting with the intent of making the encyclopedia is not vandalism. On the other hand, transcluded sigs are expressly banned by WP:SIG. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, wasnt aware there was a different signature policy than Uncyclopedia. As far as blind reverting goes, I guess you must be right, its a good policy. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite RFC

Rangeley, History21, would either of you be interested in joining an RFC regarding Hipocrite's recent edits? (I've drafted one here). I don't want to start a big confrontation with Hipocrite, who I'm sure is a fine editor, but I find his reversions troubling. Thanks, TheronJ 21:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC re History21 Reverts and Comments

Rangeley, History21, TruthCrusader:

FYI, I've named you all as parties who attempted to resolve the issues raised at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Hipocrite.

Thanks, TheronJ 22:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

History21 is a sock

See this, this, and this. rootology (T) 00:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:54995.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:54995.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 07:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo "Downtown SJ"

Thank you for taking the time to upload the photo of "Downtown SJ". Unfortunately, there is an ongoing debate on the discussion page for the Saint John article on the size and content of the SJ article. This photo is not helpful. I am removing it. Please understand. If you have any comments, see the SJ talk page. Thanks. DDD DDD 03:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Back

Did not see the vacation tag at the top. Just noticed you popping up on my watchlist, welcome back. --zero faults 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and yea I just got back two days ago. I was glad to see the consensus for things remained. It seems we can actually start working on other things for once. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you feel about the eastern europe mention as a theatre of operation, and what should go there? I only left it because it was there before and I did not want to start too much drama over changing too much of the article, but should we either remove its mention or add a short thing on the locations listed? I am kind of against the whole Chechen war being added, its all based from what I understand on Russia saying they are fighting a war against terrorists, and russian media accusing them of trying to link the chechen rebels to the war on terrorism the US is fighting. --zero faults 17:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I consider the Chechen War seperate due to it having started years before the WoT and being a different sort of dispute anyways. It wasnt begun as a part of the same WoT campaign and is not a part of the same WoT Campaign today. I am more open to things such as the Israel-Lebanon conflict being considered a part, because it began since, is targetting a terrorist group according to the USA, is claimed by the Israelis to be part of the same war, and by atleast some in the US government. The only problem is that this would open up a whole new quagmire of debates. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Notably this: ~Rangeley (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am open to the Lebanon situation as well, however I see the events fo the entire Intifada being added if that happens. So I am one the fence I guess overall. I will remove Europe from the War on Terrorism article for now however. --zero faults 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, that would be good. I dont think the whole intifada should be included, it began before it and was for different reasons. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair and Larry Lawrence

Based on discussions with TomTheHand I don't think that Larry Lawrence is an actual sockpuppet of Copperchair. However, I have created a CheckUser request to check on Larry and his multitude of sockpuppets. I'll go ahead and add Kevin Taylor to the queue. Thanks! --Bobblehead 20:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hmm

polls closed at 8 am cst. Those votes are past that time. --Zonerocks 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Result

Wouldn't it be considered a new conflict or new operation if fightining later resumes though? --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A little overdue

The Original Barnstar This slightly late Barnstar is awarded to you for your great work in redoing the War on Terrorism article, Thank you for your great contributions to Misplaced Pages. --zero faults 12:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Help

Glad for helping at the Afghan articles. Now, take a look at my new Dagestan War article: any suggestions, linkings would be greatly appreciated. --TheFEARgod 21:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed screenshot

Why did you change my screenshot for Uncyclopedia? -- Selmo 04:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair

I do not know how to setup sockpuppet checks, but User:Don't fear the Reaper made the same edits, adding future to WW3, reverting the template etc. removing Iraq from WOT related article and the WOT:Allies page. --zero faults 12:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I noticed that last night too. Hes been dealt with already: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (6th) ~Rangeley (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Massoud2000.png listed for deletion

The above images

Per your comments on my talk page, I have tagged these images for deletion. Also, please see my reply there - I tried to give a good explanation of fair use philosophy on Misplaced Pages. BigDT 20:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for sticking up for me. In all this craziness, its reassuring to know that editors who may disagree on certain issues can still step back from the debate as colleagues. Again, I'm extremely appreciative of your actions, and I'm glad to have worked with you on this article. Cheers, Tewfik 07:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Map

I know it may sound ridiculous, but i saw this map u created. if u ever think of updating or fixing it, pls include Crete in Greece as well:). Thanks --Hectorian 22:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Copperchair Returns?

Sorry for not responding to the message you left on my talk. I've been on kind of a Wikibreak lately, as I've been swamped with real-life work. Anyway, I agree with you that that IP's edits are suspicious. However, it hasn't been active lately (though it was when you left me the message), and I'd probably want more evidence to block an IP than I would to block a user name. I'm still a newbie admin and I want to be careful. Please continue to keep an eye out for Copperchair and let me know what you see. TomTheHand 15:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, Reverts without even a summary are not helpful

How did this guy ever become an administrator? He obviously is exerting bias. I put in something with an academic reference and he took it down with only a "yea, right" comment in the edit box. Pretty ungentlemanly for an admin. Dogru144 18:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin? ~Rangeley (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

War on Terrorism edits

Can you please explain why you removed 2 sourced entries ( here and here) from the War on Terrorism article? Both were from reliable sources and the sources seem to jive with the entry that they were associated with. In the case of the first, there was discussion on the talk page, but no consensus to remove it. I'm going to go ahead and revert your removals, please do not remove unsourced material without consensus in the future. --Bobblehead 02:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

1. It's still a valid criticism of WoT. And your reasoning is contrary to the name and the stated goal of the WoT, which is to end international terrorism... You may not agree with it, but the source does support what it is associated with.

2. Editorials are Reliable Sources and even though the US government does not intend for the raising of terror levels to improve Bush's popularity, it has that effect. Rather than delete the entire entry, how about a rewrite to remove the POV? Much more preferable than outright deleting without explanation.

I'm sorry the other editor resorted to a personal attack, but still doesn't justify removal of sourced material. --Bobblehead 03:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Read the first sentence of the article, then come back and say it's not against a tactic.;) Taking out Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and the other terrorist organizations listed in the article won't end international terrorism.
2. Thanks for the intelligent response. Shame the source doesn't agree with that assessment.

--Bobblehead 04:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Zer0faults is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults#Log of blocks and bans. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 02:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Bill O'Reilly to Bill O'Reilly (commentator)

Hi sorry to bother you but I started a new vote to have 'bill oreilly' routed directly to bill oreilly (commentator) and the current bill oreilly page made teh bill oreilly (disambiguation) page. This vote is taking place at Talk:Bill_O'Reilly#New_Vote_on_Disambiguation_page The previous vote was posted on the Cricket fan activism group to pull votes and so it seems only fair to inform people who might find it convenient to link directly to a page used more often.Mrdthree 07:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Rangeley,

I just noticed the Barnstar, and I wanted you to know how appreciative I am of it - especially coming from you. Different users will inevitably have different preconceptions about various issues based on their own experiences and background, and it is comforting to know that we can embrace that without letting it get in the way of building an objective, high-quality reference. Again, it was a pleasure disagreeing with you (), and I hope to collaborate with you again in the future. Cheers, Tewfik 15:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

After seeing the multiple topic headings personally targetting you and the way you handled it, you definately earned the barnstar. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The question of civil war

Hi Rangeley! You're an editor I respect and I'd like to ask you about the decision to avoid the phrase "civil war" when discussing the situation in Iraq. It seems to me that refusing to lable a factional conflict in which tens of thousands of people are dying a "civil war" violates NPOV. I can find virtually no objective definition of "civil war" in the relevant literature that does not apply to such large scale sectarian violence. Of course this issue remains controversial. But I worry that adopting the "sectarian violence" label and avoding the term "civil war" is to gloss the truth in a manner that violates our community standards. Even if you supported the war (I did), that's no excuse to adopt pro-war rhetoric in the description of the current state of affairs. Anyway, I'd appreciate any thoughts you have on the matter.Benzocane 15:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Not sure what to do here

Hi Rangeley.

I can see from the links you gave me that you're having a slightly frustrating interaction with Timeshifter. I agree with you that the conversation in question is more germane in the User talk: namespace, but he seems not to want it on his talk page. Personally, I'd let that part slide. He wants the conversation to be at Talk:Iraq War, even though it isn't particularly appropriate there; whatever. Putting the comments back onto someone's talk page after they've removed them twice is going to generate more heat than light, 10 times out of 10. I'd just post a response to his comments indicating that he's incorrect, as anybody who looks into it will see. Since this is a wiki, your contributions are viewable by anyone who cares to check. I'd just post a simple factual rebuttal to his statement, and move on. You could even mention (without casting aspersions - keep it real professional, y'know) that you think the comments are in the wrong place, but that when you tried to move them, they were moved back. Then if you can refocus the conversation on the images that are actually being discussed, everybody wins... more or less.

I realize this "solution" doesn't exactly get what you want, which is that conversation moved to the right place. I just don't think that particular battle is worth your energy.

If he's a habitually difficult editor, then something like a user RfC could be appropriate, especially if multiple editors are noticing a similar problem from the same user. Like you say, though, the wiki is full of difficult people, and you can't RfC all of them. Arguing with them so seldom renders them less difficult, that it becomes essential to choose one's battles. I decided a while ago not to fight with anybody about their own talk page.

I hope that helps, and I wish you good luck. -GTBacchus 07:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hebrew

Hi there - long time no speak . Palestine48's translation is pretty much accurate. The only change I would make is "Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip." Cheers, Tewfik 07:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Somalian War

I'll be happy to talk about my deletion nomination at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Somalian War. – Zntrip 03:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. can you tell me why you rushed in creating this article, the war can happen, but it has not yet begun. But, if it takes place I will support something like this --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
2. If Ethiopians enter the fighting I suggest an article Ethiopian war in Somalia. If all the Horn of Africa gets engulfed I suggest 2006 Horn of Africa War--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
3. I offer my assistance in creating a thing of the Somali Civil War similar to our Afghan Civil War split.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Operation Autumn Clouds

I've done my best to tidy the article on Operation Autumn Clouds, which you recently started. Regards, KazakhPol 03:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the keep vote. I cant stand it when someone puts an article up for deletion so fast, it really puts a stop to improvements. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Somali AFD

That really annoyed me. I cant believe they deleted the page! It's because it was in Africa. If it had been in Europe or North America it would have been "important" enough to have its own article. Jeez. KazakhPol 04:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Name change

See this: 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict A user (El C I think) changed the name and blocked from moving it). Utter nonsense. Cheers--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I brought it up with him on his talk page. Thanks for pointing it out to me, I didnt even notice. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OS

Just wondering, if you wouldn't mind telling me, what Opperating System you are using? --TheNunOwnedGoat 05:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you ask? ~Rangeley (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War

Please participate in the talk page discussion before reinserting that Iraq is part of the War on Terror into the infobox. If you would like to cite the speech in the article text (and I'm sure you could find others), I think that its clear that the Bush Administration has frequently referred to the Iraq War as part of the War on Terrorism. However, this position is far from universally held, and, as such, is ill-suited for an infobox, which is meant to contain non-controversial information, like basic facts. savidan 23:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

All of those points are very interesting, but the U.S. government is only one of the many combattants in the Iraq war and Misplaced Pages is not written from their perspective. I'm fine with a category, fine with the WOT template, but the connection between the Iraq War and the WOT is something that has to be discussed in the article text; it's not cut and dry enough for a template. If you are not interested in discussing this anymore, I'd ask that you not revert. savidan 01:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice I haven't been reverting. However, I've looked through all the archives, and the consensus was not nearly as clear cut as you describe, certainly not water-tight enough to justify disallowing all future discussions. I think this issue should be rediscussed, and plan on submitting a request for comment. Even if one accepts the unevidenced assertion that all the members of the MNF agree that its part of the WOT, that's really only one side of the equation. savidan 02:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not "ignoring consensus." The informal poll (as much as I dislike those) ended 15-11 against including it. I don't think it should be worded that we either, I think it shouldn't be included in the infobox, and instead should be discussed in the article text where there is room to have multiple references and explain situations that are slightly more complex than one-size-fits-all templates tend to allow. savidan 02:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm relatively familiar with Misplaced Pages's policy, familiar enough to know that WP:CONSENSUS does not trump policies like WP:NPOV. I'd prefer, at this point, to discuss this on the article talk page. savidan 02:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

consensus

Read the talk page on the Iraq War page; the consensus is cited by Savidian in that discussion. csloat 03:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to continue the discussion on the issue, but please stop misrepresenting the discussion as having been "settled" in your favor. I agree a straw poll is not a consensus but is the only measure we have so far on the issue. The discussion is ongoing, and will probably continue for a very long time, but at the moment it appears your view of "consensus" is misleading at the very best. csloat 08:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see my participation in that discussion; I participated in the other one and thought the matter settled by the earlier consensus. The June poll looks like vote-stacking and was called that by a number of people who participated in the discussion you linked. Neither poll represents a consensus. This thing really comes down to the arguments on both sides which is why I suggested it be settled in the body of the article, not in a silly infobox. csloat 22:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't edit war

Right now, there definitely is no strong consensus that the "part of the war on terror" wording should be included in the infobox. Many people feel it violates NPOV. The two polls seem to suggest a consensus that it should be removed-- but there definitely isn't a consensus that it should be included. Discuss, keep trying to change opinions, but don't edit war by adding it back in until there is a strong consensus that it belongs there. --Alecmconroy 04:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Iraq War --Alecmconroy 08:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

WoT Sisyphyian Debate

KeeperOTD to Rangeley

I've just finished reading the endless, cyclical debate on the infobox issue of "U.S. War On Terror". Primarily, I got there by wondering what was "wrong" with the neutrality of the original article as it seemed as even handed as it could be (given the emotional and divisive pov's on all sides). History has yet to reach final verdict on this issue but for right now, Misplaced Pages seems to have done it's best to represent the War in Iraq.

Anyway, I agree with the reasoning for going with "U.S. War On Terror" but my reason for posting is this: well done man.

I have to say, I would have gone insane attempting to reason with people that think that Misplaced Pages is a Stallion built by committee and believe their pov is crucial to that committee. In some ways it is, but there is a limit to how many viewpoints can be expressed/included and which "facts" are more relevant than others. The saying about "not being able to please all of the people all of the time" should be understood by the people that seem to keep missing the point(s) (deliberately or otherwise) and just accepted that "consensus" and "compromise" are not the end all, be all of the universe. There just comes a point where a decision is reached to call an "apple" an "apple" and everybody should move on instead of ranting about what kind of apple it is or whether apple sauce should really be lumped under the "apple" article as it might "confuse people".

It's not helpful to anyone to have an infobox that says, "An Apple Or The 1,000 Other Things An Apple Is Called By The Group of Reality Impaired Peanut-gallery Elitists (or GRIPE) Who All Had A Variation or Viewpoint/Axe To Grind on the Name of this Fruit (which might not be a fruit depending on the lunacy and/or conspiracy theorist level of the person in question)..."

Misplaced Pages should be clear and informative but that doesn't mean worrying about (or pandering to) the "dumbest" or most easily confused reader that might wander into the virtual room. It wouldn't be practical to explain in detail of every nuance, dispute, and so on of every single sentence of every article to satisfy every single reader. Clearly, Misplaced Pages expects a person to either understand things at a certain level or have the assertiveness to look up the linked words/concepts/footnotes of the things they don't understand.

To wrap things back up, I think you handled the issue very well and kept your cool, even in the midst of those who were clearly arguing just to argue. I myself would have exploded and just refused to debate any further; particularly the third time you had to explain the concept of "campaign" and it's importance to the issue (which I thought was both right on the nose and the best reason for calling the "apple" an "apple").

Keep up the good work. "KeeperOTD 01:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)"

Iraq War article

This user is continually re-adding part of the infobox that many users have attempted to remove. If you're an admin, please do something about this. UnfairlyImbalanced 21:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, stop editing against consensus

Rangeley, I've taken a moment to ask you to please stop re-adding the disputed text to the Iraq War page. Saying that the Iraq War is "Part of the War on Terrorism" is inappropriate for the reasons I've discussed:

• The text violates NPOV. Whether Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism is a conplex and controversial issue which must be discussed, rather than presenting one opinion as fact.
• In a New York Times poll, a majority of Americans said the Iraq War is not part of the War on Terrorism.
• In the talk page poll that was taken, a consensus of users opposed including the disputed text in the infobox.
• In the talk page discussions, a consensus of users opposes your re-insertion of the disputed text into the infobox.

Please stop re-inserting the disputed text, and do not attempt to re-insert it again until such time as a consensus of Wikipedians supports doing so. As I've said before, you've made many excellent contributions to the encyclopedia in the past, but we're at the point where if you keep re-inserting it, people are going to start trying to get you blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Already, several individuals have contacted me asking for advice on how to proceed in this manner.

Please, stop. Seriously. If you keep editing against consensus, people will be forced to take whatever actions are necessary to stop you-- and that means a lot of wasted time and a lot of bad feelings for everyone. I sincerely ask you to please, just recognize that right now, the consensus is against you, and you if you want the text in the article, you need to change minds, not edit-war.

Please, don't put the text back. If you do, then I or someone else has to take the time to go and get you blocked for it, and then you won't be able to even discuss the situation, and it'll just be a giant, giant mess, and nobody wants that. --Alecmconroy 11:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied to User_talk:Alecmconroy

• "The text violates NPOV. Whether Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism is a conplex and controversial issue which must be discussed, rather than presenting one opinion as fact."

You misunderstand what the War on Terrorism is. Its not a war, its not a wider conflict. Its a military campaign, ie a superop. Much like operations can contain subops, Operations themselves can be contained within a campaign. The War on Terrorism is one such campaign, and it is the official designation under which other operations have been carried out. It is not a POV that the Iraq War began under this campaign, the authorization of war specifically states that it was authorized to "prosecute the war on terrorism." ~Rangeley (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• "In a New York Times poll, a majority of Americans said the Iraq War is not part of the War on Terrorism."

Never cite majority opinion when determining what is factual. Most people do not think it is a war against terrorists, but this is a seperate issue of whether it is part of the campaign, which is indisputable. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• "In the talk page poll that was taken, a consensus of users opposed including the disputed text in the infobox."

Have you read this? ~Rangeley (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• "In the talk page discussions, a consensus of users opposes your re-insertion of the disputed text into the info"

Have you read this? A consensus isnt reached by a majority or a super majority, and your insistence that it is violates wikipedia rules. A consensus is reached through discussion and weighing arguments, the 4 you have given are either false on the basis that they violate the rules or false on the basis that they view the War on Terrorism as a war. Please participate in discussion with valid arguments. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have two different issues, here-- a content and a behavior one. The content one, I think you understand my position. Many people around the world think it is false to say "The Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism". The opinion exists, it is notable, and in fact, appears to be the majority opinion in both the US and the world as a whole. This means that NPOV will not allow us to present that statement as fact. Instead we must present it as a notable opinion. I think you and I have discussed this as far as it is profitable to do. If you admit that there is a notable viewpoint which says "Iraq War is not part of the War on Terror", then Misplaced Pages cannot present it as fact, end of story. That's what NPOV means-- when there are two widely-held notable opinions, Misplaced Pages does not present either POV as fact, but instead treats them both as sourced opinions. It's a pretty non-negotiable policy. In a hotly-contested polticial debate such as this, if you want to present one POV as fact, it's just not good enough to argue that your POV is "right", you have to be able to show that a political dispute doesn't even exist-- that's just not the case here. Anyway, that's the content debate, and that's a summary of my and other editors views on the subject.

More relevant here, however, is the behavior issue-- i.e. your repeated re-insertion of the same disputed text. This is an even more clear-cut issue. Whatever you think of the Iraq War, you just don't edit war like you have been, you have to stop, and if you reinsert it again, you will in all probability find yourself unable to edit the encyclopedia further.

I have read Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and Misplaced Pages:Consensus, and they only underscore the inappropriateness of your edits. Even if a majority of users supported you, your actions still might not be justified-- someone could argue that a consensus still did not exist. Given that a majority of users oppose your inserts, your edit-warring is doubly unjustified. Misplaced Pages may not be a democracy, but it is certainly not a Monarchy-- if you view "Misplaced Pages is not a Democracy" as a license to ignore the opinions of others about your behavior in cases where your POV is "right", then you are very mistaken.

Anyway, I don't mean to come down hard on you-- remember, I don't even personally disagree with you about Iraq and I wouldn't be at all surprised if 20 years from now it's completely non-controversial to say "The Iraq War was part of the War on Terrorism". I'm not trying to say you're a bad person, a bad editor, or otherwise bad-- I'm just saying, you need to not do it again. There may be a certain number of reverts that are excusable due to not understanding the rules, the situation, or the relevant policies. You have now exceeded that number of reverts by a factor of 10, and if you do it again, in all probability, you will wake up and find yourself blocked for it, which means we all lose. So, "Final Warning" and all that jazz. Please, just "retire" yourself from re-inserting the disputed text (being free to converse about the subject in order to try to change the minds of editors if you wish). --Alecmconroy 17:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the issue. When people are asked whether the Iraq War is part of the War on Terror, they typically answer within the context of the beleif that the War on Terrorism is a conflict, a literal war. This is a point of view, one which you or I could hold, one which George Bush even holds. He has called it the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century." Whether you or I agree with him there is a matter of opinion which doesnt really go here. When someone, like the Democratic party, argues that it is not a part of the War on Terror, they do so in this context - that it is not a part of the ideological struggle, that its a civil war wholly seperate from the issue of terrorism, or that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism, or any other issue that they might raise.

But this is not the context under which we are acting. Misplaced Pages has not classified the War on Terror as an ideological conflict, or a conflict period. It has classified it as a campaign, like the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, or other "War on's" which were launched by the United States. The question you have to ask yourself is not whether the Iraq War is a part of the conflict against terrorists, which is a POV, but instead whether the Iraq War was begun under the United States campaign. That is an emphatic yes.

You raised the 20 year point before, and I addressed it before. We arent using a crystal ball here and asking what people will see this as in 20 years, we are in the here and now. There is a campaign being led by the USA, and within this campaign was begun the Iraq War.

If you truly think I have made worthwhile edits here, I do tend to think that this point should be actually looked at. You really havent acknowledged the difference, every time I say this you state the same old line that a significant portion dont consider the Iraq War a part. You need to acknowledge that the context in which they state this is not the same context in which we state this. The article at the War on Terrorism speaks of a campaign, not a "decisive ideological struggle," not of a broad war on the scope of WW3. These are views which we have yet to adopt. Heres where the 20 years come in - maybe then we will consider it a war. But in the here and now, we do not.

I have read the 3 revert rule, and I have not exceeded it since perhaps May 2006 when I was far less experienced (or various times in the Israel-Lebanon conflict when there were tons of vandals.) I have been discussing this issue since April. I have done many other things within this time, but this has been raised by so many people and my lines have been said so many times that it is nearly effortless. What you have been saying is nothing new, it comes from a misunderstanding of context. Reading the WoT article in reality should be enough to make clear what we are talking about, but to give extra help I and others compromised in allowing a citation, quotes, the addition of "US," which all should make it easier for people. It is not a violation of NPOV to state, it is a violation the principles of Misplaced Pages to not state. This is an encyclopedia of verifiable information. This is what this is. And that is why it must be said. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there's going to be much headway on getting us to see eye-to-eye on the content issue. Your arguments about context and "campaign-vs-war" might be interesting exposition if you were the only author and wanted to explain the way in which you personally are using the terms, but they aren't really relevant to a collaborative encyclopedia that has a NPOV policy, where you don't get to be the personal arbitor of what the context is.

If there is a notable, widely-held controversy among the sources about whether X is true, then we cannot present X as a fact. No matter what words "X" contains. Simple as that. All the talk of context and campaigns and crystal balls can't change that basic principle, I'm afraid.

Now as to the behavior issue-- realize-- it does no good to try to change my mind anyway-- even I agreed with you, I couldn't and wouldn't go against consensus by putting it in. The fact is, in the polls, rfcs, and discussions, people don't want believe it's consistent with NPOV, and until you change enough minds that there is a strong consensus which supports putting it in the article, it is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy to put it back in. If I woke up tommorrow and decided you are 110% right on this, I still wouldn't be able to put it back into the article until there was a strong consensus among all the editors that it belonged there. That's just how it works-- I find myself in the situation all the time of disagreeing with consensus, but having to acquiesce to it.

I'm glad you're aware of the WP:3RR-- but let me call your attention to the most important part: "The three-revert rule is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users any right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique, it is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence". Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. "

Which is to say-- the 3RR is in no way a permit to edit war. Users who repeatedly revert against consensus can be blocked at an point, even if they have not made 4 reverts within a 24 hour period. Happens all the time. People can be reverted for as little as 3 or even 2 edits, in the right circumstances, and I see people blocked all the time for re-inserting the same material 5 or 6 times. You, by my count, have personally re-inserted the subtitle a total of 76 times, which is the egregious example I've ever personally come across. It's nothing short of amazing that there hasn't been a RFC/RFAr/Block/Ban on you already, and if you do it again, I think it's almost certain that things will go that way.

So, yeah-- I appreciate your POV on the subject. When 75% of the legitimate users agree that the subtitle belongs in, then I'll be happy to personally put it back in for you myself, regardless of whether I myself think it belongs there or not. But your 76 reverts are way, WAY more than is appropriate, so, yeah, it's definitely time for you to stop now. --Alecmconroy 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think we could easilly make headway and see eye to eye. It begins with recognizing several points. The first is that I have never said that a crystal ball has any application here. Never. You have persistently thrown this in and then debated against it, wholly misrepresenting what I have said. I dont know what it will take to get it through your head, I have outright denied that what people think 20 years from now matters at all to this issue. Yet here you go again, and casually throw it in as if it was a point of mine. You can stop that. Its not helpful.

Second, I have to take a moment to admire some of your tactics. In making vague references to some of my points, it would make the casual onlooker assume that you are responding to my points. But in reality, you arent. You just take some of my words to make it look that way. For instance, what I said was that here at Misplaced Pages, we do not recognize the War on Terror to be a war, the article only sees it as a campaign. What you or I beleive, or what we beleive 20 years from now - or what Bush beleives about it being the decisive ideological struggle of the century - doesnt matter. What matters is what the Misplaced Pages article is. This is the context we operate under. The article describes it, as you know, having read the opening yourself, as "an ongoing campaign with the stated goal of 'ending international terrorism.'" Now what you have done is mention a few key words, like "context," and turned this into me personally deciding what the War on Terrorism is. Its like you cut out the core, took the shell, and then complained that the shell didnt taste good. Well ofcourse it wont, you left out the juicy part. In this case the juicy part is that the context we operate isnt mine or yours, its the context of Misplaced Pages. And again, this means that when we say War on Terrorism, we arent talking about an ideological struggle, we arent talking about WW3, we are talking about a campaign. Its the name of the campaign. Thats all we see it as.

And again, you have said that when 90% of people say X isnt part of Y, we cant say it is. This is false. Not only is the context incorrect, but majorities dont decide facts. Were you to ask people if the Iraq War is designated by the US military under the same campaign as the Afghanistan War, people would probably say it was, simply because this puts them into the same context that we are operating under. If you were to ask them if the Iraq War was a part of the same war as Afghanistan, most would say no. One doesnt have a definitive source which can claim it to be part, thats the issue of whether its part of the same war. Public opinion is the "author" of that, to an extent. We cannot say the the Iraq War is part of the same war as the Afghanistan war, its simply too controversial and too mixed in views. But get this, are you ready? We arent! Surprised? Because you should be, the way you have been talking to me. Your jaw should be hanging down to your knees in total awe at this statement. No? Didnt think so. This is the key breaking point that you dont seem to want to acknowledge. We are not saying its part of the same war. Thats not what we are saying. We are not saying its part of the same war. We are not classifying it as the same war. We have not taken the steps to state it as the same war. A consensus will not easilly arise deciding its the same war. We are not saying its part of the same war. Public oppinion is mixed whether its the same war. We cant say its part of the same war. We arent saying its part of the same war.

Now that thats out of the way, what are we saying, you might ask. What we are saying is that it is part of the US led campaign. This has an author which decides, and thats the US government. Its not public opinion. If the public is actually asked within the same context we are in, and 90% say that it is not part of the campaign, they are wrong. Why are they wrong? For the same reason that someone would be wrong for saying that Harry Potter book 6 is not part of the Harry Potter series because they dont like the book. Lets say the 6th book bombed, noone liked it, everyone disowns it and says they dont like it, it shouldnt have been written, its not part of the series. They might be right about the first two points, but as to whether its part of the series or not, that is decided by good ole JK Rowling, not public opinion. She is the creator of the series, she can put books in it. The United States is the creator of its campaign, it can add initiatives and operations to it as it wishes. Regardless of public opinion.

As to your veiled threats of an RFC, I havent reverted now have I. Stop harping about it and address the points. I dont care if 90% say something, I care whether they are right. This is your chance to prove them right, or admit they are wrong. Its up to you whether we can see eye to eye or not. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is a major dispute among the sources about whether a particular book is not part of the Harry Potter series, then we cannot present it as fact. If there is a major dispute among the sources about ANYTHING, then we cannot present it as fact, but have to present it as source opinions. Summarizing sources are all we have-- everything else is Original Research. --Alecmconroy 23:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you have a point there, if the only sources we had were secondary sources such as Amazon.com or book stores and they classified it differently, we would not be able to use these as reliable sources. But if JK Rowling herself came out and said it was part, that would be that. Thats the situation we are in, even if we had multiple secondary sources stating various things about whether it was begun under a seperate campaign, which we dont, it would be cleared up by going straight to the source and straight to the authority on the issue. Even though we do not need them in this case as there is no confusion amongst sources as to whether it began under the campaign, we do indeed have the authority on record stating it as a part of the campaign. The authorization of war uses the language, the defense department website puts Iraq under its WoT section to show that it still is classified this way to this day. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The author has no monopoly on the truth-- if there is an actual dispute among reliable sources, then that's that-- we don't present either side as fact. For example, the author of A Million Little Pieces classified it as a autobiography, but others regarded it as a novel. Misplaced Pages uses NPOV-- not the author's POV or the US Govt POV. --Alecmconroy 01:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, matters of description do not have an author monopoly on them. If that were true authors would just describe their books as #1 Bestsellers and must reads, and would all be trillionaires. But we arent talking about matters of description, we are talking about a relatively limited scope which the author does have a monopoly over. They can create a series, and they can put books in their series, as thats something they have total control over. The same could be said about a comic strip, like Peanuts. Some might say that the earlier Peanut's comics didnt look like the later ones so they cant be part of the series, but that would be incorrect. The early ones were still Peanut's comic strips as designated by Charles Shultz. He was only one that could determine what is and what is not part of the strip. He couldnt have said "this one is the best one" and have that be accepted as fact, as that isnt a matter that he has control over. He can have an opinion, but thats it.

If JK Rowling said that book 6 was part, which she has, that makes any source which states otherwise inherently unreliable, as she is the sole authority. Were she to call it a true story, this is an issue that she is not the authority on, as it has left the realm of control that an author or creator has.

If the US Government called this the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century," that is merely their opinion. This is a matter of description. What is not a matter of description is whether its part of a wider campaign. Just like an author with a series, the government is the creator of the campaign and it does have the ability to determine what is and what is not in it. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And that's why we don't object to the language in the text that says "Congress mentioned the War on Terror in its authorization" or that the Bush Administration has used similar terminology-- because everyone agrees those sentences are factual. But many, many people believe the sentence "Iraq is part of WOT" is not factual. If you disagree with them, that's something you'll have to take up with the sources, pollsters, and the US population-- all the arguing in the world can't make that go away, I'm afraid. When many reliable sources say that a given sentence is false, Misplaced Pages does not present that sentence as a fact-- ever. If and when society reaches a consensus that the disputed sentence is true, then and only then can it be treated as fact.

In any case, I think I've explained things about as well as I can, so at this point, or some other point in the future, I'll stop replying. When that happens, do not give into the temptation to intepret my silence as agreement-- it just means I've gone on to more productive conversations-- it does not mean I agree with you, or that my silence implies I have withdrawn my opinions. The consensus right now is against the disputed text, adding it back in will be a violation of policy, and if someone comes to me and shows me you've added it back in a 77th time and asks for my assistance, I will take whatever steps are necessary to stop that behavior.

I don't mean to be forceful, of course-- I just don't think we're going to get anywhere on this one, I'm afraid, and there are probably better uses of both of our time here. --Alecmconroy 04:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont really see now as a timely point to cease discussion. You have more or less conceded that the Iraq War was authorized under the campaign, the disagreement which still exists seems to be that because reliable sources exist stating it to not be a part we cannot say it is. This is a problem that comes about when things are named a certain way. I will bring back another analogy which I may or may not have used in discussion with you. Lets say that there was a series called the "War on Christmas." In it there are various different books by various different people. One such book is released in this series, but all the reviewers say it is not part of the "War on Christmas" in the sense that it does not attack Christmas but defends it instead. This is the sticky situation we are in here, where there is a series, as well as a concept which carry the same name. Its true that it is part of the "War on Christmas" series, but its also true that most do not see it as part of the literal "War on Christmas." How we would handle this sticky situation, in an ideal world, would be to have two articles, one for the concept, one for the series. The books are definitely a part of the series, they are not necessarilly a part of the concept. We would state it as a part of the series, because this is verifiable. Even if 90% do not think it is part of the concept.

You said this is an issue I would have to take up with the pollsters, but I do not really see it this way. Common sense says that the poll would be dealing with the only area where people can have valid opinions and differing views, and it would not be dealing with the somewhat semantic issue of the series. Its not debatable which series it was released under, while it is debatable whether it fits under the broader concept, and therefore the poll most certainly was dealing with that aspect. If it was dealing with the other, it would be a rather silly poll where there is actually a wrong answer as its not an opinion question. Its a possibility, I just dont think its a big one, and even if it was the poll would not keep us from stating the truth.

In an ideal world, we would have two articles, one for the campaign WoT, one for the conflict. But I have floated this idea before and had it really get nowhere, with most opting out of the almost certain controversy it would create. Instead, I prefer working around these parameters, where things do have certainty, rather then attempting to deal with a conflict and all the uncertainty that would bring. But until one such article appears, the only article using the War on Terrorism namespace is the campaign, and therefore its where we link to when we state things to be a part of it. I would like to think that if we had (campaign) and (concept) in the names of the articles it would make things clear to people, but just from my experience here I know that there is no silver bullet which makes everyone happy. Thats why, again, I have come to see compromise as a necessity. In a world where everyone understands everything, stating it as a part of the campaign would not be problematic. But we dont live in a world like that, we live in a world where it needs to be adorned with extra things to help clarify. I am willing to accept these things and these compromises because they allow for added clarification without the removal of facts. This is what I have been working for for the greater part of a year. Ultimately it has put me against a great many people, as well as put me with a great many people. They havent really stuck around as long as me, the only person who remains from April is Csloat, who really hasnt presented an argument outside of "there is a consensus against it" since then. Some people have left, some have been banned for sockpuppeteering in removing it, some have been banned for sockpupeteering in replacing it. The reason I have stuck around through all of this is because I dont know that there are other people out there to make this case without becoming a "casualty" of the whole experience. I strongly beleive it to be important to state, because I strongly beleive that people need to understand the width and size of what America is doing with its allies under its campaign. Its not just freezing money assets, its not just fighting the Taliban, its all over the place. One needs to understand the entire scope of something before they actually have full knowledge of it. Maybe someone will look at its full scope and say, man, these guys are crazy for doing all that. Maybe they will look at it and decide its good afterall. There are millions of possible reactions, just like there are tons of reactions when you see the full scope of anything. Taken bit by bit, it might seem like Germany had isolated cases of antisemitism - taken together its a holocaust. Whatever peoples reactions to things, its important that their reaction is to the accurate picture of what happened, not to an inaccurate picture. The Iraq War was begun under this campaign, as was Afghanistan, as was action in Somalia, as was action in the Philippines, and as were many other things. They must be taken together because they are together. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

About your hypothetical "War on Christmas" series-- if we can find notable, reliable sources who say "Book is not part of War on Christmas", then we don't ever just say "Book IS part of War on Christmas". We state both opinions, we source those opinions, we provide an in-depth discussion.

So, let me ask you something for a change-- you agree that many many many people are "confused" by what you mean when you say, in the infobox, "The Iraq War is part of the War on Terrrorism". This is a campaign name, you say-- not a name of a war, not an implication that terrorism is related to the campaign, and not an implication that there were terrorists in Iraq-- just a name. Now, if that's the case-- what is to be lost by removing this text that is so ambiguous that it takes an extended 1000 word-discussion in order to explain what you mean by it. You say that six words "Part of the War on Terrorism" basically just mean "The US Govt cited the 'War on Terrorism' campaign when it authorized the Iraq war"-- if that's all it really means, then why not just SAY so in the text, as we currently do? Why insist on the different phrasings you have insisted on?

See, among the people I've talked to, there's two schools of thought on you. One view is that you genuinely believe what you say-- that the reader will read words "Part of the War on Terrorism" and somehow know that means "Ahh, the US Gov't has referred to this as the War on Terrorism, but it doesn't actually refer to a literal war against literal terrorists". I am the main supporter of this position, though I'm not positive that you're sincere.

The second theory is that you deliberately insisting on misleading terminology in the infobox because you want to push a particular political POV, and "War on Terrrorism" sounds a lot better to US ears than "Iraq War". In this view, you are well-aware that no reader will understand your "campagin" justification-- and in fact, this is the whole point of you insisting on the text you are trying to insist on. As I said, I'm a big believer of Assume Good Faith myself, but if you feel like typing, you might try to explain to those listening how you can on the one hand realize that no one understands your argument, but on the other hand insist that readers will understand exactly what you mean when they first encounter the article. --Alecmconroy 05:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

See, heres the thing. You keep telling me that there are reliable sources saying that the Iraq War is not part of the campaign, but I highly doubt this. This gets back to the very lengthy comment I made before this, where there is the concept, and there is the campaign. Its unlikely that anyone would say its not part of the campaign, and if they did they would be blatently wrong because the sole arbitrator of what is and is not in a campaign is its creator. The issue is not merely that the authorization mentioned it, its that the authorization authorized the war under the campaign - and therefore its part of the campaign.

I have never said noone understands my argument, its very easy to understand my argument, and further its very easy to understand what the War on Terror is according to Misplaced Pages. There have been many people who have even agreed with me, as unthinkable as that may sound to you. There have even been months at a time where the infobox remained largely untouched, with removals met with people enforcing the consensus. GTBacchus, an administrator even helped put together the consensus this summer, and found it to be reasonable.

I dont really care how many words it takes, if there are people confused, I am willing to talk to them. At this point, I could have said nothing at all on this issue, saved myself countless minutes or hours, and really there would be no difference - its not in the infobox currently, it wouldnt have been without me either. But I wouldnt take any of this time, or any of these words back because what you have said - that it was authorized under the War on Terrorism, makes it a part of the War on Terrorism. Its like the difference between saying "JK Rowling stated this as a part of the series" and "it is a part of the series." Her act of saying it is part of it makes it a part of it. By leaving it at merely her saying it, it makes it look as though its in oppinion when in reality it is fact, because she is the sole individual who can determine it. When she determines it, its a fact. When war was authorized under the WoT campaign, it became fact. Stating that they said this or that makes it seem as though its a debatable view when it is not.

To those who think I am not being truthful or whatever, this would be quite the charade indeed. I cant really prove to people what I am thinking, so all I can really say to that is look at what I am saying and ask yourself whether I am here saying its my way or the highway, or instead justifying at every turn and presenting a line of reasoning in attempt to explain, and indeed convince people who do not agree with me. In the lack of the existence of a simple way of stating the fact, I have no problem working with people, even when it takes several thousand words to do. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The disputed infobox text doesn't include the word "campaign", its words talk about a concept, and we have only your say-so to clue us into the the hidden "true" meaning of the text. If you really just wanted the article to reflect the fact that the Bush Administration has said the Iraq War is part of a campaign known as the "War on Terrorism", then there are thousands of different wordings you could use which would be clear and non-controversial. The phrase you insist upon "Part of the US 'WOT'" however, is a wording where no one could reasonably intepret it as just a named campaign. Now, if you really want the reader to be aware that the Bush Administration, the "authors" of the campaign, have named the campaign "The War on Terrorism", then you have nothing to worry about-- because I don't think there is a single reader who wouldn't know that anyway, and we further explicitly mention the War on Terror in the article text. If that's your goal, then the body of the article accomplishes it. --Alecmconroy 15:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, when the author says its a part, its a part, and it belongs in the "part of" section. The article doesnt talk about the concept, the article talks about the campaign, as you have certainly read. I offered up the suggestion of having two articles, one on the concept, and one on the campaign, as at this moment we have none on the concept. The Iraq War is a part of the same campaign as Afghanistan in the same sense that money sent to France post ww2 is under the same campaign - the Marshall Plan, as money sent to the UK was. You might not see it as important to state them as part of the same thing, but as they are true, I see it as an inherently necessary task. The Iraq War, Afghan war, and stuff in other places are under the campaign, thus they must be stated as so. If it takes a move to War on Terrorism (campaign) then so be it. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that we weren't able to see eye to eye on that, but I think we did at least reach an agreement that you will not re-insert it until there is a strong consensus to do so. If that's correct, then this dialogue was certainly a worthwhile one, and I'm glad that it helped us avert administrative action. Good luck in your editing. --Alecmconroy 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

War on terror(campaign)

I am very dissappointed with you. When you contacted the various people who had disagreed with me in the past, but not others, via talk pages in attempt to "stack" discussion against me I had an inkling that you didnt want to see eye to eye, but now that you have dropped all pretenses and dont even bother addressing anything I say, its good to see what this has boiled down to. Whats wrong with splitting articles and even adding "campaign" in? Anything? If not, dont just go away and pretend that you didnt just waste my time on a useless discussion, you are going to end what you began and come to a conclusion besides that of another veiled threat aimed at me. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My first thought is that such a title would imply that you were just going to talk about the military aspects of the WOT. The words "WOT" refer to many things-- some involve the military, some involve the courts, some involve diplomats. WOT is also an ideological statement that tries to justify US actions, a political argument that tries to justify politicians actions, and in some ways, is even a bit of a PR campain. WOT is in some ways like "The Vietnam War" but it other ways it's like the "War on Drugs". WOT means different things to different people.

So, since you ask-- I don't see what "War on Terror (campaign)" would really buy us. It implies you wouldnt' be talking about the political aspects of WOT, the media aspects, the legal aspects, or the diplomatic aspects, but would be focusing primary on the military aspects. And that's not a focus the main article should have.

In any case, it doesn't matter what you call the page-- you still can't present "Iraq is part of WOT" as a fact, rather than an opinion. --Alecmconroy 22:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The current article would merely be moved to the new location. And as it stands, the current article does deal with the entire campaign, not just the military aspects. The move would be carried out because people such as yourself show great difficulty in reading past the title. The average person reads the article when they dont know right away what something is when they see the title. Its what I do, and I really do think its what anyone acting to acquire further knowledge does. But this step isnt for the average Joe, its for the people who are so opposed to seeing that the Iraq War can be a part of anything which carries the name "WoT" that they will remove it on sight, regardless of what this thing is. They dont care to read what the WoT is that we are talking about. I honestly dont know that you care what its about anymore, you only care about the name - and think that if something is named that, it doesnt matter what it is, the Iraq War cannot be a part of it.

Thats all that this has boiled down to, and this is why we do not see eye to eye. I look past the name and realize that what we are saying it is a part of, is something it truly is a part of. These concessions, such as adding (campaign) to the name, are concessions that would remove any possibility of a good faith opposition. I can understand the view some might think it was the concept. Thats why we state it, even in the title, explicitly as being the campaign. If we explicitly state it as a campaign in the article, and in the title, noone can honestly claim it to be wrong to state the Iraq War as a part of it, being that its verifiable. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Right-- well moving the current article, as is, to "War on Terrorism (campaign)" would result in a page discussing all aspects of WOT, but with a title the refers to just the military aspect-- i.e. it would be an inappropriate title.

And yes, your absolutlely correct, to me, the name is all that matters. It's not up to me to substitute my own judgement on these matters. If lots of people say "Iraq is NOT part of the WOT" then that's that. I don't have to think about the nature of the conflict, or my own political beliefs about it, any further-- and indeed, whether I personally regard it as part of the WOT is irrelevant. That's the thing-- if you try to prove to me Iraq is part of WOT with your own views on what the WOT is-- a "campaign" not a "war", "just a name"-- none of that matters.

Once I know that there's a huge on-going controversy among sources about whether the sky is blue, then there isn't anything you can say that will me believe NPOV can let us say the sky is blue. The most you could hope for is to convince me personally that the sky is blue, but that won't change anything about what the article should say. If there is a significant point of view that "Iraq is not part of WOT" then we don't present the contrary position as fact-- even if you can convince me that you really believe the sentence "Iraq is part of WOT" actually means "Jelly is part of a Peanutbutterandjelly sandwich". If there is a major controversy about a set of words, then we don't present those words as facts.

My thinking is simple.

1. If many sources say X is false, we can't present X as a fact.
2. Many sources say "Iraq is WOT" is false.
3. Therefore, we can't present "Iraq is WOT" as a fact.

Your sincere argument, as best I can tell, runs the following:

1. The Iraq War is part of a larger set of wars.
2. Bush admin is the architect of that set of wars.
3. The architect of a set of wars has exclusive naming rights for that set of wars.
4. Therefore Bush admin has the exclusive right to name the set of wars anything they want.
5. The Bush admin has chosen to name the set of wars "The War on Terror".
6. Therefore, the name of the set of wars IS "The War on Terror"
7. The words "Iraq is part of the WOT" are defined to mean "The Iraq War is one in a set of wars which has been named by the Bush administration 'The War on Terror' but which isn't necessarily a war and isn't necessarily being fought against terrorists."
8. No one could seriously doubt that "The Iraq War is one in a set of wars which has been named by the Bush administration 'The War on Terror' but which isn't necessarily a war and isn't necessarily being fought against terrorists."
9. Therefore, no one can doubt that "Iraq War is part of WOT"
10. All the people who say they do doubt it, therefore, must actually mean something else, because no one could really doubt "Iraq is part of WOT".
11. Since no one actually doubts "Iraq is part of the WOT" (not even the 51% of the US population who say they doubt it) then we can present it as a fact.

See what I mean? You don't get to tell us what a set of words means to you, prove to us everyone agree with you (even those who say they don't), and then present your POV as fact. I have to give you, this is by far one of the more engaging and creative arguments I've come across, and I do find it fascinating, but at the end the day, nothing you say can change the fact that the sentence "Iraq is part of WOT" is very very very controversial, and Misplaced Pages isn't going to take sides in that political debate. --Alecmconroy 23:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your latest post shows your elaborate inability, and perhaps unwillingness to read the many instances to which I have outright denied parts of what you claim to be my argument. Are my responses too long, too short? Does the message get lost? I dont know how I can talk to you, I even tried repeating in about 7 different ways that the "WoT" is not a war.

For one, lets go with your argument, shall we. You are saying that if 90% of people say X is not part of Y, we cannot say that X is part of Y. In creating a working formula, in the math world or otherwise, we have to test it - plug in values. Lets do that. If 90% of people say that the (sun) is part of the {earth's orbital neighborhood), does it now become fact that the sun orbits the earth? Nope. People can be wrong, majorities can be wrong. The publics view is important sometimes, but in deciding facts your little formula doesnt work.

For two, your formula hits another roadblock because the way you are using it, it is moreso "If 90% of people say X is not a part of Y, anything which also carries the name Y cannot encompass X." Its like the distributive theory on crack. Or a really bad dating situation. Lets say there are two boys named James, and a girl named Margot. Margot had been dating James 1 for a week, but they broke up after creative differences. She declares defiantly, she will never date James again. Does this mean that she will never date James 2, because his name is also James afterall. Or any other James, the James 3, 4, 5's in this world? Herein lies the impreciseness of this world, different things can have the same name, but get this, still be different.

Your formula is even more incorrect before, because multiple things have carried the name "WoT" and they were not all the same thing. For simplicity sake, your mathmatical formula comes down to Y = (1,2) X=/=1, therefore X=/=Y, therefore X=/=2. Or, 90% of people say that its not part of something which carries the name "WoT," therefore it cannot be part of anything which carries the name "WoT," therefore it cannot be a part of a campaign called the "WoT." As you should know in math, you cant try one variable and know that all others are wrong. Therefore your argument is wrong on both the factual basis, and the mathematical basis. We have to take a look at 2, which in this case is the campaign. Can popular opinion determine what is and is not part of a campaign? Nope. (You said you have reliable sources saying it wasnt part of the campaign, I asked you before, produce them now.)

And here we get back to you saying I cannot choose the context. And here we have me saying "I wasnt, infact I outright denied I could choose the context." Now that this is out of the way, I can say the next line, "when we say that it is part of the War on Terror, the context depends entirely on what we have at the namespace of what I just linked to." Thats the context of Misplaced Pages. The article, which I have in good faith assumed you have checked out, clearly states it to be a campaign - not solely a military one, it does include other initiatives. It also doesnt say it to be a war, because we have not here at Misplaced Pages decided that a war even exists. All we have decided is that the USA has launched the WoT and a great many things under it. When saying something is a part of another thing, it depends entirely on what that other thing is, not what that other thing is named. In this case that other thing is a campaign, which we have documentation stating the first thing to have begun under. No amount of public opinion matters when we have this authoritative information.

As to the possible rename, I see your objection as just for the sake of objecting. A campaign doesnt have to be solely military, it can involve various elements. It would make it clear that we are not talking about the war or the concept, is this really something you dont want? ~Rangeley (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your questions illustrate where we differ. If 90% of our sources say that "the Earth orbits the sun" is false, then Misplaced Pages does not present that as fact. IF 90% of our sources say that "2+2=4" is false, then Misplaced Pages does not present that as a fact. Misplaced Pages summarizes sources-- it doesn't convey "Truth".

That's why any argument you personally make about whether Iraq is part of the WOT is doomed to failure. It's Original Research. It's not up to you or me to decide whether I agree with a statement or not-- it's up to the sources. There's a huge debate-- with congressmen, politicians, pundits, different nations, and the american public all debating the question. I can't substitute my own judgement for the sources. --Alecmconroy 14:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you concede that polls do not matter - sources do. This is a step forward. Now show that 90% of sources are infact saying that it is not a part of the campaign. Or really, show one. I have shown you the direct language of the authorization, I have told you to look at the defense department website where it puts Iraq under its War on Terrorism section. Do you actually have something that trumps this? Are you implying that the authorization's language was edited after the fact to state it was authorized to prosecute the campaign? Because this needs a source. You need to provide sources which would back this claim should you wish to make it.

If not, what is your objection? Its a clear cut issue, a campaign is definable by its maker, the maker defined it in a certain way, all the sources I have found carry identical language. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The polls, and their accompany news stories, are one such source that demonstrates there is a major debate ongoing. Another source that mentions the widespread view that "Iraq is not part of WOT" is Pres. Bush. One of the adherents of the view is Nancy Pelosi, the current leader of the US Congress. Obviously, you don't think these sources count, for reason you'll now tell me. I predict, in fact, you'll tell me that Pelosi, the democrats, and the 53% of the US population do in fact think Iraq is part of the War on Terror, but they have just somehow miscommunicated this belief through non-specific language. :) --Alecmconroy 19:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You provided no reliable source which carries a copy of the resolution which differs from the one I provided, and you provided no reliable source which makes the claim that the authorization was edited after the fact to make it look as though it was authorized under the campaign.

Again, a campaign is not a war, nor is it a neutral set of wars to be determined by public opinion. A campaign is an initiative, a series of actions if you will, which in this case is being carried out by the USA and its willing allies. It is comprised both of military actions, and of domestic actions, such as freezing assets. This isnt just my opinion of it, this is right from the War on Terrorism article.

Lets say Nancy Pelosi really was saying that the Iraq War wasnt a part of the campaign, and that she really is talking about the same thing which carries the name as we are. This in itself is not a reliable source, just because she is well known does not make her word carry as much weight as an official authorization. Bush stating it is part of the War on Terrorism, were he to be talking about the campaign, does not carry weight on itself either. If any other well known person came on and said it was not - even if they were talking about the same thing as us - it would not carry as much weight. They need to say why, make a claim. If Nancy Pelosi came on and said it is not a part of the War on Terrorism because the language of the authorization did not do so under the umbrella of the initiative known as the "WoT," that is getting into the realm of a source we could use. We could state that some dispute the claim, were a dispute to exist. But you have yet to provide a single source which shows any sort of dispute exists over the language of the authorization. The only source we have is that of the authorization, from multiple sites, with identical language on each. They all authorize it under the War on Terrorism.

There is not a dispute over this, and you can either play cute and try to pre-empt what I will say, or you can provide a response that addresses what I have actually said. I will ask you a fourth time, provide sources which show a dispute exists over the language. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've given you sources of notable individuals who say, point blank, "Iraq is not a part of the War on Terror". You want to include the sentence "Iraq is a part of the War on Terror". If you want to say that a source who says "Iraq is not part of the War on Terror" is not in fact disputing the sentence "Iraq is part of the War on Terror", then you should consult this source. --Alecmconroy 20:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Point?

What point do you think I'm trying to make? Be careful! Better not say I want the ED article recreated, I've said several times that I don't. Milto LOL pia 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Rangely, please report any disruptive edit-warring at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Tom Harrison 14:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

Are you even looking at the text you are reverting? You are removing a citation that says the Uncyclopedia logo is a parody of the Misplaced Pages logo, and you're restoring a self-reference, which is supposed to be avoided. Stop reverting without discussing the changes; the article doesn't have to be static, and these blind, unexplained reversions are highly disruptive. Milto LOL pia 01:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I always love it when editors add things without discussion, and then insist a discussion occurs before anyone can remove them. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Be careful; you are close to a 3RR violation. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would anyone object to adding a source to an unsourced statement? And discussion did occur on the talk page, which you have been ignoring. I even said so in my edit summary inserting that source. Milto LOL pia 04:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My intent was to revert the opening sentence, anything else would have been a mistake that I apologize for. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting an outsider's help

You and I "wikimet" during the Iraq War/ War on Terrorism naming debate. I am seeking your help as an objective, far-removed observer of the edits made by user Jmlodal to the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology article, starting with this one , through my edits, and up to the current one. Even though I am not a member of the group that has the biggest stake in this argument, I have a personal connection to this article that mitigates my ability to edit on controversial issues objectively. One might also note that the username of the other editor corresponds to the first two initials and last name of Mrs. Lodal's husband. For both of these reasons I am asking you, an objective, respected member of the community, to come in and straighten things out. Thank you. KevinPuj 04:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know Rangley or Mr. Puj. But I believe he says it all with his comment "I have a personal connection to this article that mitigates my ability to edit on controversial issues objectively." He inserted a misleading and irrelevent section into the subject article to persue a personal vendetta. This has no place in Misplaced Pages. It may well be appropriate to have a section on Elizabeth Lodal, but if so, it needs to be accurate and compete. I notice that Mr. Puj has now reverted back to his original section, ignoring all the insertions and edits made since I began this round of edits, including even the several edits he contributed that I left in. So for now, I am deleting Mr. Puj's personal vendetta section. Perhaps someone who truly is objective might write a new setion. Until then, this is not a major issue relative to TJ and the TJ article can do quite well without it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlodal (talk • contribs)

I have no connection to the school, personal or otherwise, and frankly had not even heard of it or this controversy prior to the statements made on this talk page. He is being honest in stating that he does have a personal connection, but his personal connection does not make what he says automatically incorrect, any more than it might for you. It has to be judged on its own merits. I feel like this judging is better placed on the talk page of the article itself then here. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no personal vendetta against Mrs. Lodal. I am not even a member of the group that was so insulted by her simple statement of a fact. I removed myself from editing in a responsible way, and, Mr. Lodal, I would ask you to do the same. We can discuss the changes on the talk page and have a third party decide what to do with them. I did not revert back to the original section (which I did not write, by the way, so calling it "his original section" is inaccurate). Please check the edit history. This is a major issue relative to TJ, as evidenced by the multiple, non-trivial sources that reference it. KevinPuj 15:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War

Rangeley, as we have discussed many times, it is not appropriate for you to re-insert the disputed text against consensus. It has been brought to my attention that you have again re-inserted the disputed text. I therefore am going to begin proceedings against you, with the aim of having you blocked / banned from editing Misplaced Pages as a whole or Iraq War in particular.

If sometime before I lodge the complaint, you voluntarily self-revert and promise not to re-insert the text against yourself, I will accept that and will not proceed at this time. Given how many different individuals have tried to explain to you the inappropriateness of your behavior on this, however, I think that is an unlikely scenario, so I'll go ahead.

I'm sorry it's come to this. I hope you'll save us all a lot of time and hurt feelings by undoing your edit. --Alecmconroy 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I will self revert. However, I also ask that you rejoin discussion. I gave you time to respond, and allowed for the possibility that you were on an extended break. But you have shown that you are not. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Nobody wins when people start getting banned-- wikipedia just loses. --Alecmconroy 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the discussion-- I personally think I've said all I can say on the subject. My position is that the sources that express the opinion "Iraq is not part of the War on Terror" mean that we can't assert "Iraq is part of the War on Terror" as fact. I've made this point as clearly as I can-- nothing I can say is likely to change your mind on the subject, and so there are more productive ways I can help the encyclopedia than simply re-iterating this point to you. --Alecmconroy 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Rangeley-- thank you again for your self-revert. I have posted a very sharply-worded discussion on the talk page re-iterating that the repeated re-insertions need to stop until there is a truly solid consensus. Let me say, however, that while I mean what I say about a willingness to request banning, I'm not actually upset or angry or even really "peeved" in any way. If we knew each other in real life, I'm sure we'd have many excellent conversations, and you might find we agree on much more than you might suspect.

People need my assistance, they have repeatedly solicited my aid, and I think a certain amount of forcefullness is necessary to resolve the situation, so I'm willing to play that role as needed-- but just known I'm not actually mad at you or anything. :). I'll still try to get you banned, of course, if you return to your old ways of reinserting the disputed text -- but I won't hate your guts or anything-- it would just mean you're a good person, just one whose participation is causing more disruption than help. (and seriously, take me up on my offer to have me reinsert it for you if htere's a strong clear consensus--- I really would do it without a second thought.)

Given how much discussion has been spent on the issue, I have to say, I think there's absolutely zero chance that you'll get a consensus on the issue. So, let me suggest to you that short of a consensus, you have one other way to get the text in--- arbitration. I can almost guarantee you that if a consensus of Wikipedians did emerge, I would file a request to have the Arbitration Committee review the situation, because it's so far from my concept of NPOV. I certainly wouldn't begrudge you the same priviledge, so... if you wanted to file a request and get a definitive ruling on whether your disputed text complies with NPOV, if they took the case, I would be happy to step through that process with you, without animosity or anything towards you for filing it.

Lastly, as I've always said-- I'm not trying to make the readers think that Iraq is not part of WOT-- I'm just trying to make the page comply with NPOV. There's nothing wrong with the readers knowing that many people call Iraq part of WOT-- we just can't have Misplaced Pages being one of those people. To that end, I've written a short paragraph summaring the POV on the issue-- I included the congressional authorization you've pointed me to, mentions of the president's statements. I even did my own research and dug up a strongly worded house resolution that said Iraq is part of WOT and a 2003 poll where 80% of america said Iraq is part of WOT. I hope, perhaps naively, that having a whole paragraph chock full of experts, world leaders, and opinion polls saying that Iraq is part of WOT will take some of the pressure off with regard to the desire to have Misplaced Pages say Iraq as part of WOT. --Alecmconroy 16:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I see you've been soliciting opinions from users on the WOT issue. I should probably point you to Misplaced Pages:Canvassing. It's a fuzzy area to be sure-- I generally feel, in a talk page discussion like this, that it's probably okay to ask people who already have stated opinions on the issue to discuss further (their opinions are on record anyway), whereas solicitiing the opinions of many new people to join in the discussion (especially based on their perceived POV) is probably a bit of a no-no. If you want to get more opinions, reposting an RFC is a always better way to get more eyeballs, as no one can accuse you of canvassing. --Alecmconroy 16:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As a result of your solicitation, Zero has re-introduce the disputed text despite the lack of consensus. Assuming he doesn't revert it himself, I'd ask you to do the same. Some people are saying that you've actually understood the importance of consensus, and shouldn't be subjected to behavioral proceedings if you're really turned the corner. Others say that you've just taken a moment to recruit meatpuppets to do your editing for you. So, the edit-warring done by your associates presents us with a nice opportunity to determine which you were doing. If you wanted them to edit war for you, you don't need to do anything. If you understand now that the repeated reinsertion against consenssu was inappropriate, please remove the disputed text. As always, your decisions will dictate your outcomes. --Alecmconroy 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What concensus?

For Inclusion:

• Rangeley
• KevinPuj
• Top Gun
• Publicus
• TheFEARgod
• Tewfik
• NuclearUmpf

Against

• Alecmconroy
• Timeshifter

This will be my response to you when you claim a concensus is on your side. --NuclearZer0 21:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

One is fully able to contact people for discussions so long as they do so in a way so as to not lead the invitee on in a certain way or another. Arguably, you did lead on certain editors when you "solicited" peoples opinions , but as you can read with my message, I did not. I invited people who participated in the July discussion, people who I have met in articles such as the Somalian War and the Israel Lebanon conflict, as well as people who have joined the Terrorism and Counter Terrorism project. To insinuate that all of these editors are somehow POV pushers or meatpuppets is frankly a very bad faith assessment. While you snidely labeled this something "others say," your spreading of them makes you as inappropriate as the people who originally said them, whoever and wherever they may be. Nucleaumpf, Publicus, Kizzle, and Kevinpuj all pariticipated in the June discussion, and all disagreed with me at one point before agreeing to the comrpromise which they are yet again restating and supporting. Unfairlyimbalanced originally disagreed with me, and you even put him on your list, but if you actually read what he said he later agreed that so long as the resolution was cited, he would support showing it. There is no consensus against its inclusion. The consensus for its inclusion has not been shown to be built around false footing. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Side Switch

It seems like in every war article, the "good guys" are in section 1, while the "bad guys" are in 2. It seems right to put the coalition into one and the terrorists into 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CipherPixy (talk • contribs)

Request for Arbitration

Rangeley-- I'm genuinely sad to inform you that I've decided to file a Request for Arbitration against you for your behavior on Iraq War and related pages. I'm genuinely sorry that we weren't able to see eye-to-eye on this. Since this is never a pleasant process, let me take a moment to say that just because we appear to be advesaries in this limited domain, don't think that extends to me actually thinking badly of you as a person.

Let me apologize again for the "imperative" tone I've had to take lately, or the imperative tone demanded by the RFAr process. It's silly, but I want to assure you I'm in no way "mad" at you or angry with you--- to the extend that I was bold and forceful, it was just because I'd hoped that maybe if I was sufficently forceful, maybe we could avoid going through this process. In the end, I was mistaken and the forcefulness didn't help-- so in the end, nothing was gained by me writing in all bold and threatening action against you. So, I'm sorry for any bad blood that may have stirred up.

In the end, the worst I can say about you is that your edits may have placed your duty to your political convinctions, your nation, your planet ahead of your duty to comply with Misplaced Pages policies-- and in the end, who is to say if that is even a bad thing at all. --Alecmconroy 17:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)