User talk:Zer0faults

Help with User

I am having a bit of trouble with an article Iraq War. Today I spent a good portion of the morning fixing grammar, adding sources, even expanding on certain issues that were left hanging. The changes can be seen here. The problem I am having is a user Mr. Tibbs, has accused me of attempting to "rewrite history" Talk:Iraq_War#Opening_Paragraph, a comment he didnt sign but can be seen he left it via the history page. He even stated "You two really screwed up the talkpage format" when I have only posted on that page under a topic header I created to get feedback on the POV issues in the article, note I did not tag the article as POV, and was not the only one to say its POV. I am not really as hurt by the reversions but its that the user does not seem willing to compromise or even discuss anything that involved changing the intro he once wrote. He even went as far as stating the POV issues was discussed and linked to here however the first sentence there states "..that the article needs a lot of work but I think the major problem isn't POV." I am close to my wits end as I feel there can be compromises made and I have offered one to have it shot down for removing all reasons the US went to war, then have the next shot down for adding any reason other then WMD's. Is there a policy on wikipedia that states users should attempt to come to a resolution or compromise or middle ground of sorts? He seems to refuse to budge at all. I even went as far as to put my new paragraphs on hold and instead just edit the existing one to add that there were other reasons the US went to war and cited the official resolution, Mr. Tibbs instead went and removed that as being POV also, as he states "WMD's are the casus belli for War in Iraq. I tried pointing out that casus belli states "grievances section of a formal Declaration of War." and then posted a link to the resolution authorizing war, but he seems to be not posting on the talk page anymore after this. What is a user to do next? --Zer0faults 01:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, User:Zer0faults. I'll get back to you in a second; I have to look at all the material. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 01:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, Hello. I must say it is a bit unfair to, after one revert of your material, assume bad faith of him. Granted, he is being a tad bit unpleasant on the talk page... It was, however, generally a bad idea to rerevert back to your version before a concensus was achieved on the talk page. No harm done, obviously. I would wait it out and assume good faith. If you cannot reach an agreement, this is your answer, not {{helpme}}. Good luck! GofG _|^|_| Contribs 01:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and he might not be responding on the talk page because he is not able to access Wikipedia at the time (sleep, dinner, vacation...) GofG _|^|_| Contribs 01:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Help With Polls

I am having a bit of trouble with a user who is attempting to remove the "part of" section in an article saying the name is propaganda. The problem I have though is they keep starting polls/surveys to justify there view. However many of the people who vote do not state facts to support their views or never reply to challenges to their information. I have read Wikipedia:Straw_polls which states that polls on the talk page are not binding. However the users starting them keep claiming they are, and that everyone has to go along with the vote, regardless of the fact that the vote stands at only 9-5.

I have recently started contributing to Wikipedia and am worried that "facts" are based on gathering enough votes, which is contrary to what the Straw Polls section states. Can someone please tell me if polls are actually the measure for determining what does into an article and Wikipedia:Straw_polls is incorrect. Also what action can I take to stop this from being stated as fact if it is not. Thank You --Zer0faults 15:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if you cite a source for a given section to verify something as fact, it won't be removed. At the same point, any facts added need to adhere to the neutral point of view. It is hard to make generalization without knowing the context, but when the facts are in dispute, community consensus is the fall-back to decide what should be included (or excluded) in a given article. Unfortunately, that means opinion becomes an issue. No, straw polls are not binding, and they can even be entirely reversed if new sources come to light, but generally the onus is on the editor to back up his case with references and convince the community. Anyway, I don't think I was overly helpful, so I'll leave your helpme tag up, maybe someone more experienced than I can give you a better insight. -Dawson 15:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Trouble With Vandalism?

I am having trouble with reverting an article on Newegg. The person keeps logging in from a non user account with just an IP and changing the article accusing Newegg of participating in Bait & Switch. I read the guidlines for warnings, but since the persons IP keeps changing it seems futile. The user is logging in from Oklahoma from what the IP lookup told me, however the IP is dynamic. If any guidance can be given on how to stop this, it will be greatly appreciated. I have been talking with a user on the discussion section and we have been asking the user to step forward and verify the claims or to atleast give a reference etc. Noone has come forward but the article is constantly reverted to add the unfounded Bait & Switch charges. --Zer0faults 12:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, if the problem gets really serious, you can turn to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to request page protection. However, before that, please talk to the user concerned, or use one of the methods at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which can usually put a stop to these matters. If you need any more help, please feel free to ask again. Cheers, Tangotango 12:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How to Use Strike-Through

Seeing that you changed your mind about your comments on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq poll, I thought you might want to know how to use this function of Wikipedia. Strike-through is considered the traditional way on Wikipedia to retract statements. More information can be found here: [1] - Mr. Tibbs 06:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't sure the proper way to handle, thanks for the information. --Zer0faults 22:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Very Rude

Perhaps you can try to debate facts instead of attempting to bully people with your political opinions. Stop attempting to personally demean me to get across your uncited, unsupported personal opinion.--Zer0faults 14:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is consensus you are wrong, and it is not a political opinion we are discussing but how to present things neutrally. I find it rude that people like Rangeley revert 25 times on the same issue, even after they see there is a consensus against them, and the discussion page is flooded with the same stupid stuff over and over: "The US government said so, thus it is so", and "the Cold War is an analogy". Añoranza 18:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you cared to read the talk section you would see the concensus is filled with people who are presenting no facts. This is an encyclopedia, political bickering is not the goal. Even furthur, your problem with Rangeley does not warrant your rudeness toward me. Perhaps you should read the articles you attempt to use in your defense. --Zer0faults 19:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:2003 Invasion of Iraq

My view is that User:Nescio is the lynch pin on the info box issue. If his concerns are satisfied, I'd say the issue is resolved. Merecat 19:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Rapturous Fun

I see Añoranza has come here too and talked to you. Frankly, I feel that at this time, there are too many 'Añoranza' like people on here to successfully reach any sort of agreement, atleast on any terms that are encyclopedic. He has resorted to trying to defame me, and has even gone so far as to say I am personally attacking others. As such things havent remotely happened, it should come as no surprise that such a person can also persist in his view on an issue like without anything logical behind it. The fact that all he gets out of what has been said is 'the cold war is an analogy' is dissapointing, but it appears to be the fact of life. Perhaps in a month or two, in the summer time, it would be wiser to pick the issue up again. Right now though, I dont think we have enough open minded people, who wont, in the words of Steven Colbert, still beleive on Wednesday what they beleived Monday, regardless of what happened Tuesday. When it is brought up again, we can lay it out on a silver platter rather then spread it out over a series of talk pages, and then in a series of responses in various sections of these pages. With a bit of organization, sort of like the facts you laid out in the latest section, I think it can actually get done. For now though, we can let them enjoy their little Mission Accomplished moment. Rangeley 21:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think I will have to agree with you, it is sad that I make a list of facts regarding why, and they cannot even make a list of facts supporting their reasoning. The saddest part is the Cold War anology is wrong. Bernard Baruch was the first person to use the term doing so once while making a speech, and the other time before the Senate on matters about the Soviets, he was the US representative to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission at the time. It was later used by the writer ... I thought this was suppose to be an encyclopedia not a popularity contest, its almost making me feel as though my time on wikipedia can be seen to be wasted. As an experiment perhaps I should have the name of a article changed by simple majority. Cant we call in a mediator or ask for admin decission? --Zer0faults 22:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont know about a mediator, but admins could perhaps assist the next time around in the running of it. Rangeley 04:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking for an unbiased, historical approach towards OIF, good luck. I had to battle to have the article mention the kidnapping and murder of international aid workers by the insurgents underneath the "Human Rights Abuses" section. Some say its "Pro-war POV." Rmt2m 02:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yea, its unfortunate, but oh well. Thats Wikipedia for you. Rangeley 01:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am kinda new here but are there reccomendations for what I should do regarding Mr. Tibbs. I spent a day adding new content, removing bad links and even readding his own sources. He went and reverted the entire days work stating its POV. He did not post anything on the talk page about any of the specific points either, I thought that was standard? Can it be POV to state a U.S General is retired? Oddly enough he even removed his own sources by reverting my entire work. What is Wikipolicy regarding this? --Zer0faults 01:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Might be time for a mediator. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Rmt2m 22:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you're kinda new here, you might consider looking around some User pages to see how others handle edits. Kind of ignore the particular topic; just observe the behavior and patterns and use/abuse of Wiki policies. Another approach is to pick a somewhat controversial topic (especially a political one) that you are already familiar with outside of wikipedia, use the search box to find the article, the look at the article's Talk page to see how the article evolved. Political person pages are particularly interesting. Hope these ideas provide you some insight.

Here's a jump start: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Merecat - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thewolfstar - (to add: User BigDaddy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rictonilpog/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_fallout_from_seperation_issues

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ajdz -

In case you didn't know, Wikipedia is organized as tax-deductible under the Educational category. If you're a US taxpayer, you're taxes are higher because others can deduct their donations here.

Incidently, you can be a taxpayer, but Wiki policies can indefinitely block you from editing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia:Indefinitely_blocked_users/May_2006 Has anyone done a cost comparison analysis of just buying a bunch of encyclopedia sets from the publishers and shipping them to Africa?

Sincerely, An Observer.

Thanks

Thanks for supporting me. CoolKatt number 99999 01:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Fight to keep my userpages

Could you please try and get more people to vote keep?... CoolKatt number 99999 04:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Iraq War. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Iraq War). Stifle (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

911 conspiracy

I put that link on the articles talk page, as per request in your edit summary. Cheers, THE KING 19:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I think it was a good compromise as its mainly relevant to the articles history, not as much the group directly. --Zer0faults 19:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite so. Also please see Talk:Scholars_for_9/11_Truth#pov_questions re my opinions about the questions appearing at the start of the article. THE KING 19:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

June Initiative

I think now would be a good time to begin drafting the consensus search for the War on Terrorism issue. I started a page on it under my namespace, User:Rangeley/WOT. Rangeley 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War

I think you addressed my concerns nicely. The other reasons(democracy, HR, terrorism, etc) mentioned by Bush/Blair were incorporated into that paragraph we were editing. The WMD issue begins the para and those other issues are included as well.

Also, I hope you saw my point on France. While FR did state publicly that they would veto, that statement is not the sole reason US/UK did not use the UN. I felt it was France-bashing to illustrate that point without explaining other possible vetos, or even a possibly non-majority UNSecCl vote against force.

Finally, I added an explainer on the Coalition para, it needed a little transition and explanation as to why a coalition was even necessary. Might even be helpful to explain in a small section just how this whole coalition got formed.Publicus 17:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the France item, I had not read it over after writing it to see how it may have been seen to suggest it was the only reason. I will however readd the sentence in a new structure by attempting to avoid mentioning it as a reason the resolution would have failed if ever put forth, but highliting their statement of vetoing any resolution under any circumstances. --Zer0faults 18:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, here's how

Paste this text onto a user page or a talk page: {{subst:smile3|Zer0faults}}

Do not copy from edit mode, but do copy from screen in display mode - exactly as shown here.

→ Wombdpsw - @ ← 06:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your reverts

As you were already blocked once you should be more careful than reverting such a considerable part of an article based on a lame claim about a tiny fraction of the changes. [2] Añoranza 15:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not place comments on my talk page. Your rude language in previous dealing show me you are not here in good faith. If you have something to discuss regarding an article, use the articles talk page. Unexplained reverts are frowned upon. --Zer0faults 15:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not assume good faith in your case from the very beginning seeing your massive number of reverts and biased edits. Añoranza 16:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL - Wikipedia:Assume good faith --Zer0faults 16:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Zer0defaults, often citing instances and linking to diffs are worth more than just linking civil, agf, and other policies. Provide evidence to your claims, even if it is just a one on one instance. From an outsider's POV, you're the one being rude. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 18:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not even know what you are talking about. She came to my talk page to tell me she isnt assuming good faith, my only reply is wikipedias page on assuming good faith. Also I do not consider "based on a lame claim about a tiny fraction of the changes" as being very civil. Would you talk to a colleage at work that way? --Zer0faults 19:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, I did not mean to come accross as hostile :D. All I meant was that events do not build up to the point where rudeness is acceptable. Regardless of past experience with a person, the same faith should be assumed to a certain point. What she was doing was giving you advice, in a terse but not rude manner. You're response was a demand to not place comments on your talk page, which I believe you do not have the ability to demand, along with calling her rude, with some, for lack of a better word, hipocracy about unexplained reverts are frowned upon. When she responded with an admittedly terse statement involving past experience, you rehashed by simply linking AGF along with Civil. Linking civil at all is rude in an instance where civility is not questioned, and responding with a link alone gives the tone of superiority as in; I know the rules. You are breaking the rules. Here are the rules, incase you don't know. Admittedly rude.

In response to your question about how I came upon your talk page, I was the one who responded to your Iraq War Helpme tag up top. I watch everyone's talk page who I help out. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Haditha incident

Thanks. I appreciate it. —Aiden 17:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Signature

My signature has been update to show my support for a fellow editor, he represents why check user should not be used as a witch hunt tool or means of intimidating people into non participation. When checks and balances are not enforced we have a grave state of affairs. --zero faults |merecat| 12:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm following up on the talk message you left me a few days ago: I've reviewed some of the comments you've made on this topic. I'd suggest not forcing a confrontation in support of a blocked user or a blocked sockpuppet. Your best bet is to speak your piece as you did, then let it go. This would include getting rid of that other user's name from your signature - that signature is a really bad idea. That signature could get you tagged as a trouble maker. To the degree that I've heard the comments on the subject of "sockpuppet" directed to me, I've responded with a firm denial. And after doing that, have put it out of my mind. I am reasonably sure that my edits to do not warrant any allegations or inquiries against me and as far as I am concerned, the subject sockpuppet accusations is closed. I'd recommend that you retreat from this issue and do the same. On another point, please keep me posted about articles where we've both edited if my voice on a talk page is needed. But let's be sure to keep a strong commitment to WP:NPOV. Just because something might make sense to you or me, does not mean that others will agree. Oh, and did you see this news report? → Wombdpsw - @ ← 16:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment and that is why I made my post, its not to enflame anyone but simply to state I stand against people using check user requests and accusations as a means of intimidation. If an admin tells me its disruptive and can actually explain why then I will consider changing it. So far 4 people have been accused of being sock puppets, 4 people that all went against certain editors posts. For the time being I will change it by removing the editors name, but replace it with |sockpuppet| instead and a link here. --zero faults ^|merecat| 19:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Merecat

I am very interested why you feel the need to defend this disruptive editor and proven sock of Rex. You are making serious allegations against me that are blatantly false. Please correct the accusations where you falsely assert that I started the RFCU against other editors. Since this is your second misrepresentation of nmy actions I ask you to refrain (and remove from existing posts) using my name to erroneously suggest I am doing things that I am not. I don't like what appears to become a smear campagne. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think when 3 users get together to accuse everyone who opposes their view and revert their work, accuse them of being sock puppets etc, its a better indication of a smear campaign. --zero faults ^|sockpuppet| 23:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of that accusation or retract what looks like a PA. Second, you still need to retract the false allegation I filed a RFCU!!!! Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#User:Rex071404.2FUser:Merecat There you are adding 2 users to the RFCU ... Good bye Nomen --zero faults ^|sockpuppet| 23:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am also very interested in you being very interested in anyone who supports merecat. --zero faults ^|sockpuppet| 23:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did O file the initial RFCU, not my support but the initial!!!! You are well aware I responded to the slanderous comments by Merecat using IP addresses, Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You are not their supporting but adding IP's. You should be aware of your own actions they are documented there. You are filing two names to be added to the existing one. I don't think I need to explain this to you, the link says it all. I have proved my point. Good bye Nescio --zero faults ^|sockpuppet| 00:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are very good. Misrepresenting the facts, leaving out relevant information. Indeed a worhty sockpuppet. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I dare you to file a real RFCU on me so I can laugh at the results. Do yo know what it will say? I am a sockpuppet of Mr. Tibbs since we are on the same ISP same city, same burough even. Another reason why RFCU is not accurate. If you come here again calling me sockpuppet I will take appropriate actions, see WP:CIVIL and WP:PA. YOu like pasting the links, how about you follow them. I have every right to support a user here, or to support a statement asking for a RFCU. Perhaps a RFCU on me is your best bet if you have accusations to make. As for misrepresenting facts, we cleared that up with the link it seems. Good bye Nomen. --zero faults ^|sockpuppet| 00:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, after you are calling yourself Merecat and a sockpuppet I fail to see the PA when I refer to that. Second, you still have to correct you fallacious accusation against me for which you apologies are accepted. I have not accused any account of being a sockpuppet and you know that. All I did was notice the curious edits by anons and based on the similarity in arguments, and knowledge, I made the observation that the anons are very likely Merecat. Again, stay with the facts. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you please post proof I said I was merecat? Don't think so. Good bye Nomen please follow WP:CIVIL and WP:PA. Oddly enough if you read just above you, or click the merecat link, you would see the statement on the signature. This is why people should do research before stating things. When people put "talk" links at the end of their name, they are not calling themselves "talk". Once again file the RFCU so I can laugh at the results, goodbye Nomen, not everyone you disagree with is Merecat, he isnt the bogeyman. This is all starting to seem like that Iraq page where you selectively read things. I have shown you the link where you are initiating a RFCU against 2 IP's good bye Nomen, I ask you refrain from spamming my talk page with your personal attacks in the form of accusations. --zero faults ^|sockpuppet| 00:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said you were Meract, I merely pointed out that your use of the sig implies a lot. Second, after still not retracting your slandserous accusations, you again fail to notice the IP filing RFCU against me which led to my suspicion and the subsequent response by me. Smoke and mirrors Merecat.:) (In case you missed it, this is a joke) Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your joke is offensive, I ask you either cease posting accusations and slander on this talk page or apologize. You cannot state offensive things and then simply say "I was joking" when the environment is clearly not one where a joke was made. I will nor reiterate my point about the RFCU, you can click a link, it speaks for itself. --zero faults ^|sockpuppet| 01:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you object to my noting that you identify yourself with your hero, I would kindly ask you to stop following me around, and by doing so to stop commenting in discussions you are not a part of. Or, are you suggesting you did take part in the debates disrupted by your hero you feel the need to respond to? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye Nescio, your constant accusations and fishing have disrupted my editing for the day, and I am choosing to not respond to you until you become civil and stop make accusatory statements, stop fishing for information to support your outlandish claims etc. You will no longer be responded to on this talk page as you have been disruptive to me and my work. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as you stop following me around and refrain from commenting on issues you know nothing about it is fine by me. Thank you for the cooperative attitude. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you know that Nescio has previously been caught red handed using sockpuppets and trying to blame his sockpuppet edits on Merecat? See this [3] 69.46.20.59 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought we agreed you would no longer follow me around. Just a reminder. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Come again? [4] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff

Moved to main page, and thank you once again Rmt2m --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that you like architecture. Have you seen the plans for the Fordham Spire? Rmt2m 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Normally I only enjoy building with a glass fascade but the style of that building is amazing, mainly in its original shaping. I see on the article its going through so that will be wonderful for Chicago. Too bad Fordham, the company putting it up doesn't have an email address, I would love to add more details to that article. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell, but I think the Burj Dubai might be glass. Rmt2m 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Posting pics

You must be careful about posting pictures about Volkswagen GTI Mark V's and the like, or you will have certain nameless editors looking at them at 2400dpi magnifying lenses to determine if the car is in Texas or elsewhere?  : ) If you think you've got troubles with POV-promoters, take a look at List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks. Morton devonshire 00:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I can see the manifying glasses coming out soon. I just took a peak at that article, didn't really get to read it through because I am editing an article at the moment. I added it to my watch list though, kinda of a long title for an article. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! Same subject. Morton devonshire 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I made some more edits to that article but I feel now like I am stripping it, it just needs better sources and less editorializing. I hope the user who seems to be in opposition to you can produce sources as I rather see better articles then less articles on Wikipedia, I am sure you feel the same. I have left a message on their userpage basically explaining my position to them and hoping the can provide a reliable source as the ones there currently lack identifying marks of a memo or email, such as letterhead or email headers. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm taking a break from the page for awhile in the hopes that tempers will cool. Morton devonshire 00:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to take the bait offered by the latest person to offer the article author his support. I suspect they are socks. I'm staying away from that article for awhile, as the author gets angry at almost any challenge to verifiability and reliability that I make. If the article doesn't get verified, I will eventually nominate it for Afd, but not today. Morton devonshire 19:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to 9-11 true comment

I agree that the Afghanistan War was a response to 9-11, but one need not change every mention of the War in Afghanistan - a simply addition after United State war in Afghanistan, would be appropriate in the lead sentence to indicate this. I feel it is too messy the other way. --Northmeister 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying and agree, perhaps finding a way to work it in instead of removing both mentions would have been a more steady measure. I will however not revert it as I am working on a dif article at the moment. Thank you for your quick response. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Democrat Party article

Hello Z. Wikipedia is considering deleting the Democrat Party (United States) article. I hope you will weigh in on the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_(United_States) I believe the article should be deleted, as the term isn't worthy of an article in an encyclopedia. Griot 23:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you bringing this to my attention, If in the future you see any articles I have participated on it will be welcomed if you alert me to AfD's etc. Thank you --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop your propaganda terms

Comments removed to prevent further trolling. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)