User talk:Mr. Tibbs

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

I had to be the first to welcome you!

paul klenk ^talk 19:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like your input

You appear to be someone acting on factual information rather then your political standing, and this is exactly what we need in the discussion about whether or not the Iraq War is part of the War on Terror. I feel that most editors have been against stating this, but their reasoning has largely been political, or false points. I realize that I could be wrong in this assessment as I obviously am a part of the debate, and this is why I want you to take an objective look at it. The bulk of the debate has been at the invasion article rather then the Iraq War article, so if you have not read it yet that is where it is. If you dont want to read through it all, start at one of the later subheadings, or the poll section where some of the arguments have been put forth against including it, as well as my rebuttals. It would be greatly helpful as it doesnt look to be getting anywhere. Rangeley 20:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rangeley 20:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War

Iraq_War#Publicly_stated_objectives clearly states the given objectives. Among them is Terrorists in general, not specifically Al Qaeda. Rangeley 22:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That section also states "to secure Iraq's petroleum resources" as a Publicly stated objective by Donald Rumsfeld, when he never did that. In fact the administration strongly contested the whole "this war is about oil" bit anti-war people stated. It's going to take me a while to clean up certain parts of the article. Things like this are what the Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda article are about: [1] [2] Saddam did have ties to various anti-Irsrael groups [3][4] though. But that didn't fit into the whole self-defense from WMD cause of action so it wasn't used to pump the war. Instead: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" sort of thing [5] was used. -- Mr. Tibbs 22:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well its good to see someone trying to fix it up as its needed, but my main issue is that terrorism was most certainly a given reason, Al Qaeda being included in this, but not being the only group as that seemed to imply (which was why I originally edited it). Rangeley 22:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that the "publicly stated objectives" were not erroneous. The section was a little bit cumbersome, but nonetheless important to maintain factual accuracy. I'd like mentions of all of the stated objectives in the article, not just the POV "possible ulterior motives" which is speculation. KevinPuj 10:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yum

Your username reminds me of Ethiopian food. Thanks for making me hungry. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BigDaddy

Do you know if anywhere, such as on a User:Talk page, BigDaddy has indicated why he doesn't want to respond? I think he has gotten better generally. Marskell 20:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this: [6] and this [7] pretty well explains his motives. See my post on Hipocrite's talk page: [8]. I am in the middle of writing up an RfAr myself, since Kizzle doesn't seem to be moving forward with his, and his statement is well over 500 words long[9]. As to your opinion about his improvement, I think you need to look through his recent edits: [10]. Also it is important to note the community consensus on this issue[11]. Mr. Tibbs 20:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check BD's Talk page. He's responded to your Arbitration quotation with more personal attacks. It's really sad. Keep up the good work. Eleemosynary 07:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my footnotes 1 and 2 above pretty much explain your motives. Thus, this rabble-rousing attempt to revive a pathetically overwrought and hysterically shrill dead-as-a-doornail pretend 'problem' which never rose to the level of being dignified by my acknowledgment the first time around, help vindicate my thesis far more eloquently than I ever thought possible. And for that I give you heartfelt thanks.Big Daddy 12:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for the message regarding the RfA. paul klenk ^talk 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I won't be participating, but I will be watching it closely. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notice on article Talk pages?

Hi, Mr. Tibbs. Thanks for your work with the RfC and RfA against BD777. You've placed notices on individual user pages at each stage of this. Should a notice be placed on article Talk pages that have been impacted by this problem being accepeted for arbitration, such as Talk:Karl Rove and Talk:Ann Coulter? It might help to have people who were chased off by the unfolding of events alerted to this major event, to participate in the Arbitration, and perhaps slowly start coming back to the articles in question. Then again, would this additional notice be seen as incendiary? What do you think? --NightMonkey 06:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be seen as incendiary by most. Seeking consensus[12] is just a good thing in general. Just keep it short and simple, so as to not be too intrusive. The reason I haven't done it myself, is because at the moment I am busy with the Arbitration Evidence page [13]. So just go ahead and do it if you want to. Thanks for asking me first though. Mr. Tibbs 06:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move for a temporary injunction against BigDaddy777

A move for a temporary injunction has been filed to prevent BD from altering or removing comments on his talk page. Please support. --Woohookitty 07:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I move we reject this brain-dead proposal. (I'm only trying to help WoohooKitty) Big Daddy 08:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Added my support. Thanks for the heads-up. Mr. Tibbs 18:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Q1werty
Q1werty was here--Q1werty was here 15:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can we...
All give Redwolf a kiss? I don't care if he's a guy or not. lol Thank god. --Woohookitty 02:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Manual of Style : disambiguation pages
"Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine which page they are looking for; these pages aren't for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific place." JDR 18:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reddi, you know full well that the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and the post invasion articles are essential to this topic. Especially considering the fact that your recent refactoring of the Iraq War article has thrown that page into chaos, and forced me to put up an AfD on War of Iraq. In your most recent edit you even readded vandalism: "OMG THE IRAQIS THEY BOMB US HOMG" [14]. Mr. Tibbs 18:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
easy hotshot ... if you look @ the edit history ... it was 82.45.21.253 on 09:55, 20 October 2005 that was the vandal ... I missed that ... but that doesn't excuse the excessive wlinks ... they are not needed as per the Manual of Style citation.

AND the AfD is unnecessary ... and wikipedia guidelines call for article splits when necessary ... and as

ALSO the recent refactoring of the Iraq War article included factors after the war ... this threw that page into chaos. 'War of Iraq' covers the multinational forces and the old Iraqi army (something that needs to be doen to conform to a higher standard of quality; it is a military science subject [inparticular a military history subject]). Contrary to yourallegation .... a division is necessary to differentiate it from the loose collection of different violent events of the "colloquial" use. The Iraq War article covers this informal colloquial use. JDR 18:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reddi, I'm not even going to argue with your POV about "colloquial" since the only person who seems to be supporting it is you. Just take a look at the AfD vote page: [15]. Not a single keep vote other than yours. If you want to make a "Military Aspects of the Iraq War" or something like that fine. But we don't need a duplicative War of Iraq. And we do need to link to the other two most important articles on this subject in the disambiguation page: 2003 Invasion of Iraq and Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2005. Mr. Tibbs 18:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A seperate article is need to differentiate between the war proper ... and the informal references to the various conflicts.

As per Jacquelyn Marie's comment, this issue seems to need arbitration, not an AfD vote ... so really the AfD was inappropriate.

Your allegation of "showcase Reddi's version" is inaccurate ... which biased the votes (and, BTW, the majority want to keep the NPOV content .... but move it back (eg., merge) into the original article). The article is to provide a NPOV article of military science ... Sincerely, JDR 19:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tibbs, running to Steve to get him to help you in attempts to delete the neutral article doesn't help your case. And has been stated .... in the 'Iraq War Talk' _by others_, the technical exposition of facts (as in the War of Iraq article) is the most NPOV. JDR 21:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Mr. Tibbs, its highly improper to make a POV-based fork of an article on Wikipedia (see Wikinfo) --in fact it contradicts our prime directive to strive for NPOV. Nuf Said. -St|eve 18:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looks like you perdicted the War of Iraq deal wrong, Reddi. [16] - Mr. Tibbs 04:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
John Kerry
If you read Talk:John Kerry you will see that a great deal of effort went into agreeing on a new consensus version on 11.03.05. However, the editor you just reverted me in favor of, is threatening to roll everything back 1 month (in single section of article) becuase he is against the new consensus. James has been guard-dogging an arguably POV edit for weeks. At this point, there is consensus to move forward, but he is fighting. Please don't intercede again without reading all the associated talk dialog. Thanks. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Convenient timing with your latest revert. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tibbs, I see what you are doing at John Kerry and it's not funny that you keep swooping in and reverting. These actions of yours, along with your failure to dialog there, while examined in the light of your efforts to push for 3rr against me, do not reflect well on you. I think that you are harming the efforts to resolve this. Please reconsider what you are doing. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 08:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:John Kerry
Please read this. Thank you.
Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure Rex is toast
User:Woohookitty/Vandals. This vandal started about when Rex stopped posting tonight. And of course, this on the day where I railed at Rex. I wrote a message on his talk page. Honestly, if I don't get an answer or a good answer from him, he's getting blocked. This vandal had all of Rex's characteristics, including watching contrib pages. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, either that or you're paranoid--Erahyreyryy 03:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rex071404
This has been going on quite long enough. I've opened an arbcom case, and as you are party to this conflict, could you go make a statement there? I think Rex really needs to be dealt with. Being a third party myself, I'm not sure if I got every one, but I'm going to alert Kizzle, JamesMLane, Derex, Jtdirl, and Woohookitty as well. I'd appreciate if you could alert anyone I've missed. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I started to do one of the statements but frankly, kizzle and jtdirl have been involved in this far longer than me. James M Lane too. If you guys need help, let me know, ok? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK I can do that. I will probably take some of it from the JK page. Well and it has to be Rex. *Has to be* I mean as I said in that post tonight, he's conveniently gone almost the entire time these vandals are around. This happened on the day I basically dumped on him. I had never been attacked like this...ever...and it's not like I just started controversial articles (big Daddy anyone?). Anyway, I'll add what I can. Tonight was the worst night I've had on Wikipedia. I spent 3 hours chasing one vandal trying to keep my sanity at the same time. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rex071404's arby case has been accepted
Place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4/Evidence. The general arby page for him is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little advice. I see your list of reverts. You probably want to point to Rex's list of pages to revert to (which is at User_talk:Rex071404/vf and also mention that these continual reverts are in violation of previous sanctions against him. If you want me to add all of that for you, I can, but since you are listing the reverts, it probably fits best in your section. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, dmc has proposed a temp injunction against Rex so he can stay off of the Kerry article. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4/Workshop#Template. I know he said he wouldn't edit it until we're done, but do you trust him? I sure as heck don't. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I love it. The arbys are already voting on proposed principles and we're not even done presenting evidence. :) I have a feeling they just want this over with. I don't blame them one bit. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy
I appreciate you bringing those diff's in as they show areas I need to work on. There were a few months ago, yet there is no excuse. I suppose I thought they were tongue in cheek and I don't have any problem with "foreigners" as my ex was Canadian and my current girlfriend is Croatian. As far as the integrity of the edits themselves, there wasn't any. They were wrong and I admit it. I don't remember working with you in the past but if cross paths again I hope you'll see that my actions have improved and that, as has been all along, albeit misguided at times, my gaol like yours is to build a better encyclopedia. Thank you for your time.--MONGO 22:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
=Final decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 4 case. Raul654 20:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My RFA
Thank you for your comments. I apologize if I offended you or made the RFC situation worse than it already was. That was never my intention and I like to think I learned a great deal about Wikipedia from that experience and am a better Wikipedian for it. I made mistakes and for that I am sorry. No hard feelings for your oppose vote. I was not surprised that it came up (see my answer to number 3). Thanks again and have a good one!Gator (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Please read this. Thank you. Jeravicious 01:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to edit (sectarian violence) in Iraq War article:
I suggest a revision or redifining of the terms in the new edit made to the Iraq War article. A statement should be made that civil war can be defined in the terms of sectarian violence, beacause it is. Also the fact that the President claims that Iraq is not in the state of civil war or disorder is completely contrary to fact and should be pointed out in the article. At any matter it should at least be discussed. Thanks.--Existential Thinker 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request to reopen Rex071404 (talk · contribs) RfAr #4
In light of recent sockpuppeting by Rex071404 (talk · contribs) a/k/a/ Merecat (talk · contribs) to violate the permanent ban on his editing of John Kerry, I've requested the fourth and most recent 'Rex' RfAr be reopened and if appropriate, the remedies re-defined and re-applied. As a prior petitioner of that RfAr, I'm notifying you here. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just added my statement. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. -- Mr. Tibbs 22:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. They are appreciated. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, just so you know, some of the links you put in your RfAr broke because both the Incidents page and the CheckUser page were archived. -- Mr. Tibbs 23:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Methinks tis fixed, amidst misfits' trix. Thx! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 8 hours

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) 08:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

For your information, the reverts are displayed at the following edit links:
1st

2nd

3rd

4th

Stifle (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
remember, 3 reverts a day ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whopper (talk • contribs)
Reply
Somewhat late, but this maybe interesting:
If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few – 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[17]
Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poll
Hi. I know I'm probably not doing as you'd hoped when you contacted me and I apologize for that. I'm not opposed to polls in general, but I don't see this one 'solving' things without an admin knocking heads together to force them to follow it... which we actually aren't supposed to do most of the time. I do think there may be a way to settle this or that we could have a poll over which of a few different wordings to use in the article once we get some suggestions to consider. --CBDunkerson 01:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It worked on 2003 Invasion of Iraq with the same users: [18] [19] don't see why it wouldn't work here. You don't really need to knock heads over anything. The poll just cuts through Zero and Rangeley's endless ranting and see's if theres a consensus on this issue or not. Also it's good for getting attention on this article. Which it really needs. I think it's kind of funny that there's so much fuss over "casus belli" here when it's sitting in the Infobox of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article without any problems. The reason I was looking for an admin in the first place was to write up the poll as neutrally as possible, but I was impatient and figured Zero and Rangeley would complain about it anyways. Just like they did with the previous polls they were involved with. -- Mr. Tibbs 04:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question, you really think "casus belli" is going to cause confusion with the poll? Its in the infobox's of United States invasion of Afghanistan, 2003 Invasion of Iraq Gulf War and numerous other articles so I thought it was basically common sense. Honestly I think a lot of the arguement Zero and Rangeley are raising over that word is just bad faith filibustering. They know what it means, and just in case someone doesn't I added that (main reason) tag. -- Mr. Tibbs 04:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith --Zer0faults 20:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Iraq War Article Reversions
Please see Talk:Iraq_War#Mr._Tibbs_Reversions, an explanation is warranted since no summary was left as to why, no factual basis challenged, etc. Please reply on the appropriate article talk page. Thank you --Zer0faults 20:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Neutral arbiter
I wonder if this user's edit history reminds you of anyone. Phr (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's User:Rex071404/User:Merecat. Man, he's persistent. Notice the identical edit summaries that use just the word "clarify". Mere doing that: [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. Neutral Arbiter doing that: [28][29][30]. Here's Rex complaining about a chart on GWB article: [31] and here's Neutral going after the same chart[32][33][34], don't know many editors that attack charts of all things. Also there is some behavior pattern similiarties going on between User:Neutral arbiter and User:Wombdpsw look at these edit summaries all using this phrase: "Let's keep it NPOV, discuss". Neutral doing that: [35][36]. Womb doing that: [37][38][39][40]. They both also use similiar phrases like "please keep it NPOV". Of course this is often just a way to hide POV edits and to editwar. I recommend getting a Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser on both User:Neutral arbiter and User:Wombdpsw against Rex/Merecat so the remedies from Rex's 4th and last arbitration case can be enforced:[41]. -- Mr. Tibbs 19:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to pursue that, I can't do that, I'm off-wiki for several weeks starting today, in fact I should be gone NOW. Phr (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Odious
Thought you might want to see this. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I added a note about it on the RfAr page: [42] And the anon sock started posting there too. -- Mr. Tibbs 08:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults
As a user you had trouble with, too, refuses to solve conflicts reasonably, I would like to ask for your comment. Añoranza 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added my certification signature thanks for the heads up. -- Mr. Tibbs 04:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
help !
User:Zer0faults and User talk:NSLE have teamed up to censor comments and push propaganda. I have been blocked by User talk:NSLE to prevent me from making comments at the RfC. 216.153.214.89 09:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RfC conditions
You violated the conditions again and it will be noted in my comments section, you placed the RfC information on articles that were not in dispute. Have a good day. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the kind of behavior that that RfC is about. So putting a notice on pages where you've demonstrated that kind of behavior is entirely appropriate. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]