User talk:Zer0faults

You have new messages. (last change).

• /Archive 1: May 18, 2006 - June 22, 2006

WP:POINT

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

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

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

GunBound and Rakion

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

Warning

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

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

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

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

Graffiti and nazi pictures

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

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

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

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

-vandalising cemeteries is not graffiti related

-nazi symbols are DEFINITELY NOT graffiti related

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

Thank you and greetings.

WOT template & Iraq War

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

WOT template & Iraq War

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

Iraq War casualties

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

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

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

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

Ann Coulter poll

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

Operation Linebacker

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

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

""Desert Storm" and "Golden Pheasant" are less propagandistic - I do not even recall to have protested the first one. However, referring to the powers of nature and one of the most expensive metals is euphemist when actually labelling a military attack"

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

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

ForestFire

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

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

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

Compromise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3RR suggestion

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

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

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

Shopping For Votes

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

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

Here we go again

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

At it again

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

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

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

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

Operation Summer Rain

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

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

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

Operation Summer Rain

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

Wikiproject

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

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[6] made on July 1 2006 (UTC) to Iraq War

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 21:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources for WOT

Posting here till I can post again.

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

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

Links for 2000 al-Qaeda Summit

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

Template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/s/

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

Clerk of the Mediation Cabal

The fact you are unable to resist pestering me yet again, proves you are not interested in any mediation. Stop harrassing me and await the procedure or admit you have something against me personally. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazing isn't it?

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