User talk:Reddi

I am intermittently inactive.

NOTE: Satus is currently offline for the foreseeable future. Comments may not be answered in short order. This does not imply the violation of any of the Wikipedia policies. I sign on infrequently. I currently access wikipedia through various friends and public sources. I will be on from time to time ... just adding content. Any and all criticism, comment, and feedback welcomed. JDR 18:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Put new comments below

"Please do not feed the trolls".

From time to time I'll respond here and delete the
old content; I'll leave them for a few weeks (mostly). JDR 18:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Past discussion can be seen through the History page

---

Responses

Thanks for the all comments ... [replies here; sniping addressed ones; user responing to - comments; most "quoted" comments are in italics]

---

Netoholic/Wik

On what grounds are you asserting this? Snowspinner 20:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The character of his edits. I did not put in the sockpuppet notice @ his page, and it still is there ... and the user has not answered any question as to if he is or is not (but others have came to the same conclusion). The edits are also of the nature by NoPuzzelStranger. JDR 20:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Iraq War is over

Hello, Reddi. I was looking at who rewrote the Iraq War article to a past-tense state, and found this diff which showed that you did it. The point of having an "Iraq War" article is to represent the current and ongoing war in Iraq, and to define the common term that everybody uses. While the 2003 invasion of Iraq was "mission accomplished," the "war" (according to popular consensus and terminology) continues. You even stated in the infobox "Occupation end: June 28, 2004!" Only a particular view considers the occupation over, and there are some basic facts (extended immunity for soliders, etc.) which contradict this and at the very least make the statement one of POV. There are some serious problems with the framework you rewrote it in, and there are going to have to be reverts. :( SinReg, -St|eve 04:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The Iraq War article should be in the past-tense state, as it is a finished war. The point of having an "Iraq War" article is to represent the war and other articles to delineate Iraqi insurgency. The "conflict in Iraq" as it stands now is the insurgency (some say Iraqi civil war).

Define the common term that everybody uses? Iraq insurgency does this (or more particularly Iraqi civil war does). The google results link (god results?) that you gave cover the war on terrorism, the finished iraq war, and the insurgency.

Now, after the occupation ended, a new sovereign took control of Iraq .... it's kinda telling that you bring up the banner thing .... after the 2003 invasion of Iraq there was "mission accomplished" (this, though, particularly misapplied event to the overall war (this was to the 'invasion of Iraq' only); it though has been disbelieved by many of the war's critics (aka. a vocal and non-neutral POV) and subsequently disputed by these critics) and the current conflict [or "war" (usually applied with the anti-war POV to "keep the war going")] is a miscategorized in reguards to the the "iraq insurgency" (that is why that article is there ...).

It is stated in the infobox "Occupation end: June 28, 2004". That is when the new Iraqi government took control of the country. This is view of UN ... who considers the occupation over. There may be a problems with the article's framework of the article if it contridicts a particular non-neutral stance. The insurgents are fighting the internationally recognized Iraqi government. The "Iraq War" article is to represent the 2003 war (and some of the "occupation") .... not the conflict concerning the insurgency and the new government (and it's allies).

There are not any serious neutrality problems with the framework it is in, and I will watch any reverts to ensure impartiality and neutrality. Sincerely, JDR 19:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Iraq's violence

The Iraq War article should be in the past-tense state, as it is a finished war. The point of having an "Iraq War" article is to represent the war and other articles to delineate Iraqi insurgency. The "conflict in Iraq" as it stands now is the insurgency (some say Iraqi civil war).

Define the common term that everybody uses? Iraq insurgency does this (or more particularly Iraqi civil war does). The google results link (god results?) that you gave cover the war on terrorism, the finished iraq war, and the insurgency.

Now, after the occupation ended, a new sovereign took control of Iraq .... it's kinda telling that you bring up the banner thing .... after the 2003 invasion of Iraq there was "mission accomplished" (this, though, is a particularly misapplied event to the overall war (this was to the 'invasion of Iraq' only); it though has been disbelieved by many of the war's critics (aka. a vocal and non-neutral POV) and subsequently disputed by these critics) and the current conflict [or "war" (usually applied with an anti-war POV to "keep the war going")] is a miscategorized in reguards to the the "iraq insurgency" (that is why that article is there ...).

It is stated in the infobox "Occupation end: June 28, 2004". That is when the new Iraqi government took control of the country. This is view of UN ... who considers the occupation over. There may be a problems with the article's framework of the article if it contridicts a particular non-neutral stance. The insurgents are fighting the internationally recognized Iraqi government. The "Iraq War" article is to represent the 2003 war (and some of the "occupation") .... not the conflict concerning the insurgency and the new government (and it's allies). Sincerely, JDR 19:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No, that is entirely a United States-based view of the situation, as dictated from POV sources. It is not even remotely the reality. For example the use of "sovereign" in reference to Iraq is often criticized as a mere propagandism. Even on its surface the article cannot take the bias you describe, because that would be deferential to only one view. Probing any deeper, we find a basic contradiction between the concepts of sovereignty and the existing state of a military occupation —which more closely resembles colonialism. As I said before, the extension of complete and total diplomatic immunity to foreign soldiers, as well as the existence and deference to legal codes established under the occupation, stand as facts in disagreement with the claim of "sovereignty." I will copy this discussion in full to the Talk:Iraq War page, and ask for further community input. -St|eve 21:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, Stevertigo has filed an RfM here. Before mediation can happen, you'll have to accept (though accepting is not mandatory and you may reject the case). Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 02:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll look at Stevertigo's RfM request. I may "reject the case" ... but I'll determine this after I have considered the RfM information.

I'm not sure if I will accept ... as Stevertigo's conduct (as well as the overall tone of many "anti-war" partisans) has been appalling to me ... he, specifically, used abusive language, attacked me personally (which I have returned inturn ... as what he said about me fits him more appropriately in this situation), and ridiculed another editor in the Iraq War talk which made me sick (something that goes against Wikiquette; though maybe I should exercise a bit more candor on returning insult inkind). This has soured me on Stevertigo (as well as reinforceds my opinion on some aspects of wikipedia) ... as I had fair views of him before (but knew wikipedia has various flaws) ....

I'll consider the RfM ... but have not made a decision. Sincerely, JDR 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, last I checked, "Wikiquette" was far below Civility in terms of its order in the heirarchy of core policy. And even if this was a civility issue and one of conduct (as you claim) this would still be subordinate to the prime directive. In fact it is not at all a conduct issue, but an NPOV issue —and not to mention a style issue: Ive looked at your latest rewrite and your writing is of poor quality, IMHO. Dont take that as a personal "insult" —its just my opinion of your writing at this time. You have no doubt contributed immensely to parts of the article which require facts, or parts which explain your general point of view. In this regard, I cannot complain. But with respect to the introduction, I must ask you to defer to better writers (you can find one who shares your POV), or I will take this to Arbcom as an issue (not a conduct) dispute. SinReg, -St|eve 19:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm ... the above is seems to be ... what's the term you used? mmm ... Bull----.

It's funny that you would use "prime directive" ... as one case of your incivility was during a comment by a user with a trek'ish name on how _you_ were making the article POV'ed.

"poor quality"? make a WikiProject Grammar request ... but don't POV the article nor make the article inaccurate. Also ... resorting to the socalled "grammar critique" indicates that because the facts cannot be argued, then the "style" need to be redone .... aka., "If you can't attack the validity of the statements, attack the grammar and spelling."

AND .... this isn't my "general point of view" ... it's the _technical NPOV_.

Sincerely, JDR 20:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Because WP:RFM is moving slowly, and you have insisted on reverting the page, an WP:RFAr may be more appropriate. -St|eve 21:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Since your strong POV (which seem to be anti-war) on this subject .... you went directly to "mediation" w/o trying to resolve the issues by alternative means (eg., not gone through earlier steps). And then ... after not taking all other reasonable steps to resolve this dispute (nor exhibit any patience), you have asked for "arbitration".

I have insisted on reverting to a semi-NPOV version of the article (though it needs a cleanup) about the colliquial phrase "Iraq War" [that you seem to want to push; a version that includes the various individual conflicts in Iraq together (and this is an aspect that is promenient in the anti-war community ... but also in the press' (liberal and conservative) _informal use_)] ... and have made attempts to keep a NPOV atricle of the war proper (eg., a technical one).

Sincerely, JDR 21:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

RFM is NOT moving slowly, we can't mediate if Reddi doesn't accept. Don't blame us for someone not accepting to do something, we have no power and we will not force Reddi to accept. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

RedWolf, do you have any suggestions for getting Iraq War back into reasonable shape if mediation doesn't work? I'm considering just reverting it back several weeks to what it was before Reddi touched it. There's an RfAr up about this too:[1]. That RfAr might be rejected as simply an issues dispute, but I wonder if this dispute is resolvable without some sort of intervention like the AfD I filed to fix the War of Iraq problem. - Mr. Tibbs 01:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Iraq War

Why did you redirect Iraq War to Iraq war and paste the former's content into the latter rather than use the page move feature? Now the history is in two places. — Dan | Talk 18:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

reverts at Iraqi insurgency

Greetings. User:Hesketh Fortescue, User:Eoritwiethm, and User:Erhdfh seem to be accounts used by the same person. Any idea whether there are other accounts used by this person? Wanna start an RFC? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocked, 3RR.

You have been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violations on Iraqi insurgency. Please leave any comments here; I'm watching this page. Ral315 (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

And you've since been unblocked...the page has been protected to avoid the same editor continuing to sockpuppet. Ral315 (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Edits to Mariah Carey

Extraordinary Machine -- Mariah Carey -- edits I undid (and should have originally explained, for that I apologise)? No apology necessary .... I did not take it as an offense .... so no worries there ... discussion regarding your edits at Talk:Mariah Carey? I answered there ... go there to voice your opinion on the matter? I did ... now .... as to the "the rule of thumb on Wikipedia is that an edit of a page that consists of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a "minor edit"" ... I have that on by defualt .... mabey I will turn it off (I am unsure @ this moment ...) ... as my edits (usually a series of medium and minor ones) are "real changes". I do only unmark I make a a masive change ... such as adding a whole new paragraphs of text. For this to be "considered bad behaviour" is relatively new to me, as it wasn't here when I firsted edited wikipedia .... it seems to be a 2004 guidleine (right before I had a leave of editing; and of which I probably didn't see before the leave) ... and very subjective (eg., "one which most other contributors would agree is minor"). Thanks for the wlnk to the Wikipedia:Minor edit article though ... I do not really agree with it (as most edit can be considered minor ... IMO only major changes needing to be unmarked [and 'an editor' can _choose_ to see these minor edits or not .... I myself view all edits in my watchlist (minor and non-minor) and encourage other to do so too ... ]). Also ... this guidelines isn't a "rigid rule" ... they are "suggested" rules of thumbs. It does seem that Ed Poor and Angela seem to have went over this (w/ Angela setting the page up), and both of which I have a favorable opinion of .... so _mabey_ I'll turn the auto-mark off, after some consideration or mabey not (as it is easier for me to leave the mark on, as I am doin in this edit) ... I'll get back to that later though ... Sincerely, JDR 16:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Discovery Channel

I'm really impressed by your edits there so far. Thanks! The only question I have now is, now the lead is really small, so what do you think should go in it? (I agree that the stuff you moved from there shoudln't have been up there, though) Jacqui ^★ 20:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

External links

Hi Reddi. Nice effort on the Muhammad article links, however I think for clarity the links should be kept in non bibliographic style. Also most of the links are not specific articles, but rather websites, so article citation style is not necessary. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The information (author, publisher, etc., ...) adds clarity to what the link is .... JDR 21:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, however that is not the link style. That is newspaper linking style or other specific article citations. See Jesus article for examples. Such extra info only obscures the links themselves. Informative links do not need publisher, author, etc. However, if this was for "further reading" resources or article reference then that can be used. . Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Please continue discussion if you have any concerns. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The Jesus article need to be raised to a higher standard ... the deficient in one article does not mean that other should suffer too. The exact formating could be changed ... but the content should stay. The info add clarity and helps the reader ... it also comments about the site and the ISBN (if applicable). AND external links/articles are damn well a hodgepod of 'other references' and 'further reading' ... otherwise why are they there? Sincerely, JDR 21:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Reddi, I also have some concerns about your intro paragraph in the article Terrorism in Kashmir. The reason I am concerned is that it is not only the insurgency that is talked about in the article, but rather the Indian military also. Both sides are responsible for the deaths of over a 100,000 people, whether it be state terrorism (using military) or separatist related (insurgency). --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Anon .... the title of the article and other redirect terms should be bolded. It does sound good to include the Indian military's action though .... I'll do that if you don't ... JDR 21:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC) (PS., I did just look at the article ... and it does say "of a campaign of terrorism and militancy by _all sides_ of the conflict in the insurgency. " ... mabey that could be expanded to include the military ...)

I have changed back the intro for now. But please give me some time to think of a way the terms can be bolded or please suggest your ideas. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok ... but please try to put in bolded terms in .... I'll check back later on it ... [if I can, i'll try top wait a day] ... mabey a discussion @ the article's tak might be better on "please suggest your ideas". I think that something can be done to include all the actors in the violence .... JDR

No if anything the article's talk page will complicate issues further over something so minor. Please remove the message there and I will think of solutions to this small problem. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok .. i'll rv the talk page .... JDR 21:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Yeah, it's just that sometimes two users can easily figure out solutions rather than having other interventions. Having seen and talked on that discussion page before, I know that there are plenty of vandals and flame war editors. Thanks--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's both think about this small solution and if you get any ideas just put on my talk page. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit descriptions

Reddi, please don't use the edit summaries for vandal alerts. If you want to notify me, just use my talk page - but I'm keeping an eye on it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency reverts

Report if a user makes more than 3 reverts at WP:AN/3RR. Ral315 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo's mail @ mailing list

• you have email -St|eve 01:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll post this @ the talk page ... JDR 20:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

India related links

template:India quick links

---

template:India tasks

Pamri ^{• Talk • Reply} 04:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Umm ... I don't know why you posted that here ... I am not Indian (not that there is anything wrong with that ...), but I do know that the name "Reddi" has some significance concerning India (a town or region or something) ... Sincerely, JDR

My NPOV tags

I added two NPOV tags today, one to pathological skepticism and the other to Majestic 12. As you requested, I added several points to the first one and a few points to the second one. I would appreciate it if you would read the articles for POV, and see if the NPOV tag is appropriate or not. Bubba73 (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Chronobiology

Please explain how are biorhythms "related," on basis of a verifiable peer-reviewed reference. Jclerman 17:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed references are not need. JDR 17:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

First law of thermodynamics

Hello - Just to let you know I posted in the discussion section of First law of thermodynamics in case you are not watching. I see you may not be answering for a while. I will revert in a day or so if I don't hear from you, but we still should discuss this. PAR 22:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Crisis

Hi! The world is going through a catastrophe. The Martians have invaded Finland and are currently destroying me. I need help! Do you agree? --213.138.128.13 09:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, blast 'em out of the sky, then. :) --Ixfd64 09:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Tesla stuff

Firstly: Tomingaj is a Serbian village in Lika. Secondly: Nikola wasn't born in Croatia, but the Military Frontier. Thirdly: What is this about his "Romanian" origin? HolyRomanEmperor 17:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Tomingaj is a Serbian village in Lika. OK thanks ... that could be posted @ the NT talk page ...
2. Nikola was born in the Military Frontier. I came across this very early. I am, from my various reading, in the postion that NT was a serbian ... I do not state that he was Croatian (though others do). If you thought I was responsible for the post, I am not ... I just pulled it out of the archive (... it was posted by an Anon IIRC)
3. The Romanian thing (eg., the Vlach thing; or do you mean somthing else?) came from a page on his parents IIRC. It was about his ancestory (but I can't remeber if it was the maternal or paternal side). Sincerely, JDR 17:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

But his second name's (Tesla) has origing strictly from the Serbian language: tesla means adze in Serbian. HolyRomanEmperor 21:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It was some time ago that I looked into this. Is it (or was it) the practice to pass the last name down the paternal side of the family? If so, then that would be in accord with the Serbian origin of his last name (as his father was a Serbian; as far as I remember). I do not have any problem with stating him as Serbian and he himself stated he was a Serbian (and, more generally a Yugoslavian). Though, IIRC, he did make some references to him having a portion of his heritage from Croatia ... I'll see if I can did up a reference and post it at the NT talk page later. Inaddtion, the Vlachs of Serbia may be relevant to the discussion of his serbian heritage and Vlach references.

ALSO, it may be nice to explicitly address this in the NT article though ... as there is some confusion about it (but may be a contentios issue). JDR 22:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Then what were you trying to say on the talk page of Nikola Tesla? HolyRomanEmperor 21:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to repost the anonymous editor's comment on the talk page of Nikola Tesla (after I had archived the old talk .... I had moved it there and it was "relatively" new). Again ... this may be a great subsection in NT's article ... and help reduce the confusion around it. JDR 22:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, I can explain that perfectly. I am a Vlach (Serb). The Serbs of Krajina (Frontier in Serbian) (in present-day Croatia) were called Vlachs. 147.91.8.10 18:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The Habsburg Emperors have issued several edicts called Statuta Valachorum, translated as Serbian statute(s) in which the Serbs of the Military Frontier gained more and more power (independently from the Emperor of the Croatian Ban) 147.91.8.10 18:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The Habsburgs issued many edicts by the name Statuta Valachorum, translated as Serbian statutes which the Krajina Serbs used to draft more and more power independant from the Emperor or the Croatian Ban. 147.91.8.10 18:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Vlach was a name generally used in the Habsburg Empire for Orthodox Christians, and since the only church was the Serbian Orthodox Church, so did many indeed Vlachs assimilate into Serbs but the number was minimal and unimportant, and long ago. 18:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

My mother comes from Upper Dalmatia, she is a Vlach (by descendency and tradition), but she is no nationality or ethnicity other than Serb. Do you understand what I am trying to say? 147.91.8.10 18:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Please calm down

There is no need to be crass. You need to do more research on the history of the CMB before posting work like that. Joshuaschroeder 21:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Was that meant for me and why? 147.91.8.10 16:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No 147.91, Joshua wasn't commenting to you ... he's making banal satements toward me .... 147.91, I did copy your commonets above over to the Tesla talk page though ... continue it there please .... JDR 16:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and it's me, the HRE :) HolyRomanEmperor 17:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Iraq War

More comments. -St|eve 08:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

WMD and PIPA

The edits that raised alarm bells were meant to reflect the PIPA report. The question asked whether Iraqi WMD had been found. Stockpiles were not mentioned, just the broad topic - rightly or wrongly. Do note that I removed the word "misperceptions". Daniel Collins 17:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Plasma cosmology

Please explain your recent revert in terms of the edits that were explained on the page. Thank you. --Joshuaschroeder 20:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"Please do not feed the trolls". JDR 20:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Three reverts without making an appearance on the Talk page is heavy stuff. Can you explain yourself? --Art Carlson 21:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I will 'deny' discuss request on edits with trolls .... I may discuss it with other editors that are not "apolgists" or evanglists for whatever viewpoint they hold (which may include you, Art ... but I have not had much interaction with you) and I have lost faith with the other editor, primarily because of personal attacks thrust upon me (and other violations of the Writers' rules of engagement). He has also gone out of his way to work against a consensus. I try not to revert the same page more than three times on the same day, but there is nothing "heavy" about that ... and this is clearly within the acceptable policies of Wikipedia. Sincerely, JDR 15:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

:I am considering a User:RfC against you for your conduct with regards to this matter. Art Carlson will let me know shortly. You can avoid this simply by responding on the Talk:Plasma cosmology page. Thanks, --Joshuaschroeder 20:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Please respond to your RfC here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Reddi. Thanks, Joshuaschroeder 22:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Elerner RfC

I have added a request for comment on Eric Lerner's editing, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Elerner. You may want to look at it if you have a spare moment, since your views are probably quite different from mine. –Joke137 00:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

New criticism, comments, and feedback