Jump to content

User talk:Zer0faults/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

.

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.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi 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!!!!Holland Nomen NescioGnothi 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,Holland Nomen NescioGnothi 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.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi 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.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi 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)Holland Nomen NescioGnothi 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 NescioGnothi 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 NescioGnothi 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 NescioGnothi 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)

Removed more trolling comments, warnings are tags, you seem not understand what tags are. Also your warnings are not within policy. Stop posting here. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed more trolling attacks. Stop posting here.

Añoranza

[5] Please advise. Haizum 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Is he allowed to pose as an admin and post baseless NPA warnings on my talk page[6]? Haizum 03:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
They can put a NPA tag up, however I guess you can take them down as they did mine [7] Just use their reason if it applies, they cannot argue with a justification they themselves gave. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:RFC

I didn't block him, I simply warned him about using the unblock template (he was already blocked). But as for your RFC, if no one else signs it in 2 days it will be delisted. Don't worry too much :-) Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 04:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply, I appreciate your help, sorry for mixing up who did the blocking. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 04:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've asked another admin to take a look at the RFC, lest I be accused of something or other again. NSLE (T+C) at 10:33 UTC (2006-06-09)
Thank you, I guess that is the proper way as I have seen the baseless accusations against you. I am sorry you are being attacked over this whole incident. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Gunbound screen 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gunbound screen 1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Truce

Having seen the increasingly tense discussion between you and Gorgon, I suggested on his page a truce. I know you don't consider me a neutral party, heck you might even dislike me. I don't care, I don't want to be involved in this anyway, but only made an attempt at stopping what looks like something that is going to explode. Sincerely.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I replied on his page and I do agree with you. I have done what I can to ease peoples minds of their sockpuppet claims however it seems those claims with be un pursuaded not matter what I do, and so I will not mention it to him again, unless he mentions it to other users or myself. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Name Change?

I am trying to find out if its possible to have my username changed as some users are now using my contribution list to specifically vote against me and take up opposition to my comments. If not I would to have to edit from an IP from now on as I was starting to enjoy the community aspect of Wikipedia. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends what you mean. Your account can be renamed if you have less than 20000 edits, but of course then everyone would still be able to look at the contributions. Your other option is simply to logout and create a new account then start again. Just don't use both accounts to break policy etc. --pgk(talk) 19:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
See m:Right to vanish, which isn't strictly speak what you are talking about. An RFC is not binding as such, it is an opportunity to discuss and for you to see a broader community view of any issues you are involved in and hopefully either see what you are doing is generally acceptable/ok or that it isn't so that you can change. If you simply logout and create a new user id then if someone finds out it might be seen as "dishonest" in some way, if you come back and start editing the same articles/subject areas people will likely catch on that it's you fairly quickly. Renaming your account can be a semi-fresh start particularly if you take a couple of weeks break before doing so. Personally I guess I'd do the latter, letting any RFC come to its conclusion first. If you want to request a rename see Wikipedia:Changing_username --pgk(talk) 20:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I have decided to edit from an IP for the time being, then depending on the results of the RfC either stay as anonymous or create a new username later. I will however not redo any votes I have made in the past while I am under the anonymous IP. I see what you are saying about RfC, however if you seen the current one against me, you would see why its more like a witch hunt, 2 people have commented, and both have called me a sockpuppet. Is there anyway to get an admin to read over the RfC and see if everyone commenting is in fact following the rules, if the certifying user was in the dispute to even certify etc? I greatly appreciate your quick responces. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't give up

So some people can't stand to be intellectually spanked, doesn't mean you have to let them push you away. We need you to stick around and keep them from turning wikipedia into a useless, POV nightmare. Rmt2m 19:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I want to stay but I am getting increasingly frustrated with users ganging up to attack people. Its annoying to have someone make an accusation against you, then when you prove them wrong, they make up random reasons why your proof is wrong. I am hoping I can get an admin to look at it, however I have been unsuccessful, if nothing meaningful is added to it soon I will just remove my comments from it, and act as if it does not exist. It seems some people do not realize what a RfC is for and if they are not gonig to use it to settle a dispute then I will not participate in it. Also thank you for your support. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

OK so maybe you are not Merecat

But you are unfortunately going to find that many folk are going to treat you as if you are. That is unfortunately a cost of supporting people who turn out to be playing sockpuppet games. When you react to reasonable inferences with high indignation you merely reinforce suspicion.

Having reviewed some of your other edits I am prepared to admit that you have made quite a few non POV positive edits.

On the Operation: Just Cause article I think you are dead wrong on the name. Dictionaries and encyclopedias should use objectively neutral and consistent terms. US Invasion of Panama is NPOV, using a propaganda term introduced by one beligerent is POV. It would not be so bad if the name had been something less loaded like Operation Ajax. Just Cause was not even the internal US military codename for the operation, it was strictly a Whitehouse press office invention. And since then there has been a series of similar names such that they are not very usefull or memorable. --Gorgonzilla 23:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am happy you admit I am not merecat, While I support the name Operation: Just Cause, the whole dispute was over the way Anoranza handled it. In the incident reports I was asking admins if there was a rule for or against it and they were not even sure apparently. I was not against a name change, but removing of operation names from the entire encyclopedia was over zealous, even Cyde agreed, though he agreed with the article name change. If you are sincere I would hope you would post something to this affect in the RfC, or not mind if I add a comment on this. Like I said I was not against the name change, however Anoranza moved the article with no discussion then changes all the names stating she was "avoiding redirects" but you dont have to change the reference to avoid a redirect you can use the "|" symbol in the wikilink. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm glad you agreed with my edits to the opening of Iraq war. I didn't realize what a firestorm I was stepping into, but I knew the lead needed work. I see you are involved in an RFC. Man, I feel bad for you. I've looked through a lot of the talk and edits, and I think this whole situation has been overblown by people with a strange agenda. I really agree with Theron's comments, although I feel too new to the situation to post on the RFC. I think you and I have differing views on the wisdom of the war itself (just judging by your edits, perhaps I'm wrong), but I think this problem is more about personal attacks and minutia-mongering than constructive disputes over content. I just want the page to calm down so it can be cleaned up and streamlined. Again, thanks for your comments, and let me know if I can help end this distraction. Nscheffey(T/C) 10:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC

You are posting in the wrong section on the RfC, please remove your comment and place it under your section. IF you do not in 24h I will just move it for you to your section. Thanks you, there is also a comment on the talk page for you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As your innuendo was, as so often, very long, I placed my comment where it best fits. Given the misleading character of what you wrote I find it offensive that you object. Añoranza 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The rules of the RfC says you cannot comment in my space. Please remove your comment, it will be removed in 24h if you fail to do so. If you object to the rules of the RfC then do not use this RfC to make a point, WP:POINT --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I told you why I did what you did and I think you should apologize for your misleading comment rather than insist on a literal interpretation of the rules in this case. Añoranza 12:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I see you are refusing, I will not delete it, I will simply move it up to your area where it belongs. There are rules to the RfC, I just ask you follow them. I did not post in your section and all I ask if your respect of my section. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You refuse to apologize for a misleading comment and you even want to keep it misleading others. If you remove my comment I strike out yours. You again show you have no interest in resolving the conflicts. Please post any further messages regarding this where they belong, not at my page. Añoranza 12:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You are not allowed to comment in my space, I do not see the issue here. Please respect my spasce to make my case on the RfC page. As I stated the comment will be removed in 24h. It also does not state you were banned, and clearly indicates I may not be familiar with the facts of the situation, however you were blocked by sasquatch for uncivility, so its not misleading. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You followed the whole case, and you make it appear as if I had been incivil to you or directly connected to your case, which is untrue as you know very well. Again, if you remove my comment I will strike out yours. Añoranza 13:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not arguing this point with you. Your comment will be removed in 24h. Its in the wrong place and your negotiation here is invalid, follow the rules of the RfC. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Turn a negative into a positive

Unfortunately I don't know of any practical way to avoid the repeated accusations you get. I'm not sure it's entirely wise, but you could drop this on top of your talk page (the link goes to User talk:Zer0faults/Sock) and copy all the accusations into it. That way you're not accused of "blanking warnings" or whatever from your talk page. You could even make a comment there once and a while yourself so they don't get lonely. Maybe humor will work where complaining to ANI won't. Thatcher131 04:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet This user is frequently accused of being a sockpuppet by editors who can't seem to believe that there might be more than one person in the world who disagrees with them. Until they let go of their fixation, they can play here.

I think that is a great idea, and I will put it into affect tomorrow. Thank you for your help in squashing these rampant accusations, I think this is the right direction to go, to stop getting upset over it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 04:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

RFC

What/where is this RFC I'm reading about? Can you provide a link? I'd probably be interested in commenting. Haizum 04:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Zer0faults --zero faults |sockpuppets| 04:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Haizum 04:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have reviewed the RFC as best I can; I have commented and added it to my watch list. Haizum 05:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitol Steps

I really don't want to get mixed up in this, but I also don't want to see what looks like an edit war over code names for military operations break out on pages that have absolutely nothing to do with the military or their operations, such as the Steps' page. The item in the history of the first President Bush did contain a bit about "the United States invasion of Panama" until User:Wareq changed it early on 17 June 2006. I'm not pointing fingers or anything, but I didn't realize it was such a hot button to use military operation codenames, or I would have just done a revert, since it caused a redirect anyhow. I'm also going to try to ask User:Añoranza to leave it as it is now, the way the text read as of the 16th. Thanks! --JohnDBuell 06:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

WOT

Wikipedia:WOT is up for vote now. Rangeley 14:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Our mutual antagonist

If you need any help just let me know. It really needs to stop. ← ΣcoPhreek contribstalk→ 19:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You provided all the help I could ask by commenting on the RfC. There is a discussion taking place at WP:MILHIST regarding the policy. They seem to feel operation names are fine in the body of articles, just preffered not for titles if they can be called something else, unless that is the most popular name for them. I will keep an eye out for further mass reverts by our mutual friend and alert them to the ruling if anything. YOu can see the discussion here --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that link ← ΣcoPhreek contribstalk→ 21:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

RFAR

I have filed an RFAR against User:Añoranza listing you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Añoranza. Ideogram 09:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, I will add a statement later to it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hippocrite...

Any idea of what to do about him? He deleted a vast portion of the discussion, which I reverted. Rangeley 14:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No clue, perhaps he doesnt like that the support is in favor of WOT. Perhaps his idea is pure and he just doesnt feel its appropriate. I just hope it doesnt get deleted. I do not think this user understands the mess its gonig to create on all those pages if it does. He has not participate in the many months of talk and debate rephrasing etc, so he may be ignorant to the past events that lead to this step being needed. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is important that it doesnt get deleted or else it will just have to be revisited later once again. Though its dissapointing that once again one debate has turned into two, this time the second being a debate about the debate... Rangeley 14:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"rescind your vote"?

Um... I think you were addressing me, following my comment directly as you did, at the Conservative Wikipedians CfD. I just wanted to make it clear that I'm not supporting the deletion of that category at this time, and I think you may have gotten the wrong idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My deepest apologies, discussing with you in 2 places on 4 monitors gets very confusing. I have noted it was a mistake on the CfD page. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, to muddy the waters even more, now that all the political categories are nominated, I am supporting the deletion of that category at this time - as part of the group... better hang on to your hat, this is gonna be a hell of a ride. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not mind that, I just feel its wrong to single one out. Honestly I think its a bad thing since I think knowing peoples political affiliations stop others from making assumptions, then again it can also work the other way around. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nomen Nescio

He has now taken to inserting points into the Wikipedia:WOT article to misrepresent what it is about. If you can help revert some of his vandalism that would be good, since I will probably be targetting for breaking the 3RR rule if I continue. Rangeley 21:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Any poll that disallows the opposing view by definition has disqualified itself. Zero is even deleting my comments so we can safely assume you are not interested in a fair debate but are trying to make talking points into facts. I ask you to stop deleting coments by myself and others and restore them.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please do not remove portions of the user's comments, nor refer to these as link spam. Thanks. El_C 11:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is link spam when he posting a link to another discussion --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Source in NSA article

Reply at User_talk:Reaverdrop#Source_in_NSA_article. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 00:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting comments in talk pages

Please do not delete comments in talk pages. It is considered vandalism.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I can remove comments from here that are violations of AGF against other editors. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


On another topic

How about this as a compromise? ← ΣcoPhreek OIF 14:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you think anyone else will go for it? For me it keeps the operational name in place without causing a redirect plus for "others" it acknowledges the bias and propaganda aspect of operational names. One can only hope ← ΣcoPhreek OIF 14:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope so, however this users issue is not really with clarity or redirects, its with the operation name itself, give it a go and we will see. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:Nescio

I will be removing your comments from my talk page. Please direct them to the user for whom they are intended. Thank you. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

my "message" template

Place the following code at the very top of your user page, or user talk page, to have as much pathetic fun as me. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony 19:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Oh god, I can't believe it's spreading like a disease ... Ideogram 19:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Muahahahahaaaaaa!!! - CobaltBlueTony 20:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You cannot stop it, it will be everywhere I tell you, EVERYWHERE!!! --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
At which point I will know to click only if I get TWO notification boxes. At which point people will start to double up the fake templates. Ad infinitum ... Ideogram 20:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... so you have discovered the secret plot to flood wikipedia with endless boxes!!! CobaltBlueTony squeeled didnt he! --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the idea. - CobaltBlueTony 20:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I was almost weary of following my own messagebox just now even though it was on an edit page, some how this new toy has made my time on wikipedia so much more ... dare I say it ... exciting. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi. You have been blocked from editing for (a rather symbolic six hours, next time it will be 24) for breaching the 3RR rule (please review it). Please cease revert warring. I'll keep an eye on the page in case you wish to discuss the block with me. Thanks.El_C 21:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this even in regard to? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind I see now. I dont not mind the block as long as it was applied evenly. I will wait out my 6 hours. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It was applied evenly, rather charitably so on your end considering the so-called "linkspam" removal on the AfD. Note that once the block expires, you are prohibited from reverting any article for 24 hrs, except for obvious vandalism (i.e. unrelated to this dispute). El_C 22:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
As long as that includes the other user, I have no problems with that. I will just go on new edits patrol later if anything. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The block logs are here and here. El_C 22:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

Kizzle and I have agreed to using quotes around the War on Terrorism in the infobox so as to make it clear it is the specific conflict as opposed to a general term. With this, I think we have pretty much settled it. Rangeley 00:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Task Force

I made a taskforce for the War on Terrorism which can be found here. Join it if you do so choose. Rangeley 14:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: OEF

That seems fine; I'm guessing there shouldn't be any objections until Anoranza returns. Kirill Lokshin 18:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, and thank you for the quick response. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: OEF-Philippines

Since Filipinos are also involved in the conflict (as mentioned in the article), I feel that they should also be mentioned. Besides, Filipinos are actually doing most of the fighting. 23prootie 02:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zer0faults/Archive_1&oldid=1190234724"