User talk:Esaborio

Welcome!

Hello, Esaborio, 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:Questions, 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! Jedi6 -(need help?) 22:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you.

Edit summaries

Dear Esaborio, please use edit summaries when making edits to articles. It's common courtesy to let other editors know what you're doing to an article and why. Thanks, and see you around!—thames 22:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Esaborio, I notice on the Template:Was on Terroism template you are still not using edit summaries. Please remember to use edit summaries as a courtesy to your other editors--it helps us know what changes you're making and why. Thanks—thames 02:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War on Terrorism

I fail to understand why you reverted [1] my changes. The only reason you provided was "Revert indiscriminate removal of content". Please have a look at the page history of War on Terrorism. I provided good reasons for every edit. Most of them where just moving content, not deleting it. And I broke down my edits into several steps, so that you and others can easily verify what happened on each step. Your "indiscrimate revert" removed several references, messed up weblinks and reduced the article's legibility. -- I noticed that you tend not to justify your edits. Other people do! ---zzz 00:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my user page. I'd prefer to continue the discussion here, where it started. Your recent edit [2] supports my point. You labeled it as "Restored link", but the biggest change was the deletion of a whole paragraph on military strategies for no apparent reason. It was added several edits earlier [3] by User:RonCram. I don't know if you deleted that paragraph just by accident, or if you purpusefully mislabelled your edit. In the case of my edits, it would have sufficed to simply restore 2 deleted paragraphs (if you really just wanted to undo the removals). They are easy to locate, just check the page history for my edits labeled "rm" (=remove). I'd appreciate if you were careful with your edits. That might help to reduce the discrepancy between your edits and the reasons you provide. ---zzz 23:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Removing NPOV tags and ignoring discussions [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] is against wikipedia policy. Please stop it. Añoranza 09:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to see what a NPOV tag is and where they are appropriate. Also if you did not notice concensus is against you in the majority of those articles. --Zer0faults 14:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further if you feel the term is not appropriate perhaps you should centralize the discussion on the appropriate talk page instead of every page where the term is mentioned, war on terror talk page would probably be your best location. --Zer0faults 14:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consorcio Jurídico Metropolitano

Hi, Esaborio: I put an {{advert}} template on this article because it seemed to be an attempt to sell the law firm to prospective clients. I noticed that you cleaned it up. It also seemed less than notable at first. I also added a {{Costa Rica-stub}} but I doubt you have an objection to that. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. V. Joe 07:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before removing it

I wish that you would please read the consensus we reached, which is stated here: Talk:Iraq War at the top, before reverting again. Rangeley 12:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if you have concerns raise them there. That is more constructive than reverting edits everywhere. Rangeley 02:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOT template & Iraq War

Can you please lay out your arguement for why its not included so we can possibly come to some sort of middleground, or if you would like me to provide information for why I believe it is, Just asked for certain facts and I will attempt to dig them up for you. I do not want to participate in a revert war and I am sure a middleground can be reached. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I second that. Reverting things everywhere is not constructive. Rangeley 11:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I withdrew from the monologue you might be interested in the ongoing RFC that is located below the alleged consensus.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You requested a link in the War on Terrorism article, and I gave you a link, and placed it in the article. Why do you continue to revert, is there another problem? Rangeley 12:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The three-revert rult

Hi; There is a policy limiting the number of reverts we are supposed to do in one day, the three-revert rule. You may be close to violating it on War on Terrorism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borders around white flags on the War on Terrorism Template

Why do you disagree with the borders around white-edged flags on the War on Terrorism template? [12] If there's a reason that people like me shouldn't be able to see the difference between the white background and the edges of the flags, I'll listen. Until then, I've re-added them. Thanks. Picaroon9288 02:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOT

Is there any reason you reverted? Rangeley 02:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, well than I am sure we could easilly put together something more to the point. However, after you removed the Iraq War from the theatres of the War on Terror article multiple times, I got the idea that you dont beleive it is a part of the campaign. The campaign is being waged by the United States and its allies, they can start whatever they want under this campaign. Do you disagree with this? Rangeley 02:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how it is a lie that the Iraq War was begun as a part of the campaign? Rangeley 03:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know you have already stated that much. Can you explain how it is a lie? The resolution authorizing the use of force states "Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;" [13] They dont do things much clearer than that - it was officially begun as a part of the campaign. Rangeley 03:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you are right about that, it is a United States resolution and not a United Nations one. But heres the problem: The "War on Terrorism" is a United States led campaign, not one of the United Nations. The United States began the Afghanistan War as a part of this campaign, the United Nations did not begin the Afghan war. Is there any reason that the United States cannot add things to a campaign it began? Rangeley 03:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not the truth? Do you disagree with the premise that a government can determine what is and what is not part of campaigns they are carrying out? Rangeley 03:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC) as a part of the campaign. Perhaps there were people who wanted to invade Iraq in 1950. This doesnt matter, the actual implementation was done under an umbrella campaign. Do you disagree with this idea? Rangeley 03:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, this is the very heart of the issue. You beleive that the "War on Terrorism" and all of its components must be against terrorists? Rangeley 04:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the stated goal is actually ending international terrorism by "stopping those groups identified as terrorist groups, and ending state sponsorship of terrorism." Iraq was identified as a state sponsor of terror in 1990 by the CIA, and thus the "War on Terrorism" certainly could, and was extended into Iraq. Whether or not a group is actually a terrorist group, and whether or not a country is actually a state sponsor of terror is irrelevant. The campaign is against those that have been "identified as" such by the United States. Rangeley 04:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was justified. Having something in this wider campaign is note a "cure all" justification, it is factual. Other nations, for instance, launched campaigns against things they called evil - notably the nazi regime of Germany. They labeled Jews, and other assorted groups, "enemies of the state" and summarilly executed them. It is no justification to state that the killings, gas chambers, and concentration camps were all a part of the same campaign. Indeed it can have the opposite effect, by recognizing they were all a part of a campaign against minorities, rather than independant events, we can understand the true scope of this campaign - and most people who look at the Holocaust in its true scope conclude it to be quite the unjustified action... to put it lightly. But why do we recognize it as one campaign, is it just to make Nazi Germany look bad? No, it is because they officially did these things as a part of their "final solution," in other words, we recognize them as a part of the same campaign because they are. Likewise, the United States and its allies are waging a campaign against those they label "terrorists" and "state sponsors of terrorism." Should we recognize the different aspects of this campaign as a part of the campaign because it will make the USA look good, or bad? No, not at all. We should recognize them as a part of the campaign because they are. If you take it all together, you can understand the true scope of the campaign, and, like anything else, you yourself can determine if something was justified or not. Rangeley 04:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect, the War on Terrorism is a campaign with a stated goal of ending international terrorism by "stopping those groups identified as terrorist groups, and ending state sponsorship of terrorism." Check out the article yourself if you do not beleive me. Rangeley 05:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq, as I said, was considered a State Sponsor of Terror since 1990. Here is a source describing why it was added to the list, [14], dated April 2001 (I beleive). Being a state sponsor of terror is not limited to not handing someone over, it also includes financial support for terrorists, or if they plan attacks themselves, like they did against George Bush Senior. The United States considered them to be a State Sponsor, and authorized the use of force under the campaign which is against those they consider state sponsors of terror. Do you get this much? Rangeley 05:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the US went into Afghanistan without UNSC approval, as noted in its article. Do you think that Germany was within the rules when it launched its campaign against minorities? Hardly, people involved in it were later tried and many were charged with warcrimes. Legality, morality, or justification hold no bearing whatsoever on whether something is part of a campaign. Call it a war of aggression, call it a crime against the universe - it doesnt matter. It was still begun as a part of the campaign. Rangeley 05:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a lie to say it was begun as a part of the campaign. This discussion has covered a lot of ground, but do you have any other objections that you havent stated? We have clarified it doesnt need to be legal, they dont really need to be state sponsors of terror (the US just has to see them as one), and it could have been planned years ago - and it could still be in the campaign if it was begun as such. Rangeley 05:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, its quite debatable if this was a wise place to go to advance the campaign, I have done that quite a bit with people in person and online since before it even started. But regardless of what you or I think of its wisdom, the fact remains that it is indeed a part of the campaign. Rangeley 06:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - do you disagree that the USA considered Iraq a state sponsor of terror? Rangeley 06:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, whether they are right or wrong doesnt matter. Iraq could have no ties to terror whatsoever. All that matters is that the USA sees Iraq as a state sponsor. And they did. The campaign is against those they see as state sponsors. Rangeley 06:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an issue of justification, and thus irrelevant. This could very well be terrorism, genocide, nuclear holocaust... anything else you can think of, and it would not have an inch of effect on whether it is part of the campaign. Rangeley 06:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the campaign is against those the USA has identified as terror groups and state sponsors. Its that simple. I have proven to you that the USA considered Iraq a state sponsor of terror, and proven to you that they authorized the use of force to further the campaign. Rangeley 06:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were any of the people Germany called "enemies of the state" actually enemies of the state? I will go out on a limb and say none of them were. But we can still recognize that Germany waged a campaign of genocide against the people it labeled "enemies of the state." Why is it any different with this issue? Even if none of the people the USA labels terrorists or state sponsors are actually terrorists or state sponsors, we must still recognize that they are waging a campaign against those they see as terrorists or state sponsors. And thats what the "War on Terrorism" is, and this is what the Iraq War is a part of. Rangeley 06:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proof for what? Rangeley 06:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is against those that the USA has determined as terrorists or state sponsors of terror. This doesnt mean that they arent really terrorists, it just means it is against those the USA considers to be terrorists. Much like if you had 100 dollars that you were giving away to the 10 nicest people you knew. If there were an article on it, we would recognize all the money you gave away was linked together. Whether the people you gave it to were really nice or not doesnt matter, you gave it to them because you saw them as nice. Thats whats going on here, whether or not Iraq, Afghanistan, etc are really state sponsors/terrorists does not matter, the USA and allies have gone to war with them because they saw them as state sponsors/terrorists. Rangeley 07:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt say beauty, I said nice, as in kind. What you consider kind might be different than what I consider kind, much like what you consider terrorism might be different than what I consider terrorism. So rather than leaving it as an uncertain, open campaign, the "War on Terrorism" is against those who the USA sees as terrorists. Sure, you can consider it a war against everyone they dont like if you want. You might not even consider it much of a war on terrorists. But this doesnt matter, its still a campaign they are carrying out in which Iraq is a part. Rangeley 07:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source? The Iraq War was begun under the "War on Terrorism," not the "War on Terrorism 2: Evil Edition." Rangeley 07:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it isnt proof. But I thought it was already clarified, the campaign is against those the USA sees as state sponsors of terror, which it did. Rangeley 07:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially. Though if you are curious as to why the CIA considered Iraq a State Sponsor of Terror, you can check out the link [15]. Whether or not any of the reasoning is right or wrong doesnt matter, its irrelevant to the fact that the USA considered Iraq a State Sponsor of Terror. Are we finally clear on this? Rangeley 07:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda like fighting in a world war where the whole world isnt actually involved? Or a Cold War where actual fighting breaks out? Or a War of 1812 that lasts until 1815? Or a War to End all Wars? Rangeley 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, they never could have known it would be the War to End all Wars either... but they named it that anyways. And you said it can take the meaning from the fighting - not really. It began as a campaign against those they saw as terrorists and state sponsors, and it will continue to be that. If you think that it makes the campaign pointless to have Iraq in it, that is your oppinion which you are welcome to. But how is this relevant to the issue? Can you just agree to stop removing and reverting this everywhere it is? There really isnt anything else to debate, we have talked non stop for more than 5 hours and the last 2 hours or so of it has just been a recap of the previous 3. Rangeley 08:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will take that as a no then. We will have to resume this discussion later, as I have to get sleep. Rangeley 08:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you think they shouldnt have labeled Iraq a state sponsor of terror? How is this relevant? You already admitted they did label them a state sponsor of terror. Rangeley 17:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, they lied about listing them as a State Sponsor of Terror? Because they didnt, they really were listed as one. What arent you understanding - the war is against those they see as a state sponsor of terror. They saw Iraq as a state sponsor of terror. The "War on Terrorism" is against those they see as state sponsors of terror. Your objections arent even relevant to this issue, somehow you are saying because they werent really a state sponsor, it couldnt be in the campaign? In order to argue this, you would have to both ignore the definition of the noun "War on Terrorism," and ignore that Iraq was labeled a state sponsor of terror. The "War on Terrorism" is a specific, defined campaign led by the United States against those they see as state sponsors of terror. Not against who you or I see, its against who they see. Do you disagree that it is against who they see, and do you disagree that they labeled Iraq a state sponsor of terror? Rangeley 13:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You never addressed this, yet you still revert war. What is your rationale? ~Rangeley (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you never addressed it. The "it" I am referring to is "Wait, they lied about listing them as a State Sponsor of Terror? Because they didnt, they really were listed as one. What arent you understanding - the war is against those they see as a state sponsor of terror. They saw Iraq as a state sponsor of terror. The "War on Terrorism" is against those they see as state sponsors of terror. Your objections arent even relevant to this issue, somehow you are saying because they werent really a state sponsor, it couldnt be in the campaign? In order to argue this, you would have to both ignore the definition of the noun "War on Terrorism," and ignore that Iraq was labeled a state sponsor of terror. The "War on Terrorism" is a specific, defined campaign led by the United States against those they see as state sponsors of terror. Not against who you or I see, its against who they see. Do you disagree that it is against who they see, and do you disagree that they labeled Iraq a state sponsor of terror?" ~Rangeley (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do beleive I did read that. I dont see how it addresses the two questions I asked. Do you disagree that the campaign is against who they label state sponsors of terror? Do you disagree that they labeled Iraq a state sponsor of terror? ~Rangeley (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont beleive I am wasting your time by asking you two legitimate questions. You have twice removed a peice of information, and if you are unwilling to explain why than you must cease as it is not contructive. ~Rangeley (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is wasting time it is you. You have not answered those two questions, you have said that the USA has lied. That doesnt answer the questions, though. Do you disagree that the campaign is against who they label state sponsors of terror? Do you disagree that they labeled Iraq a state sponsor of terror? ~Rangeley (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not disagree that it is against those they label state sponsors, and you do not disagree that they labeled Iraq a state sponsor, wrongly or otherwise, how can you possibly object to including it? I honestly do not understand your point of view. ~Rangeley (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, if thats all you have, than this is settled. It doesnt matter if they are really state sponsors of terror. All that matters is that the USA labeled them one, which you agree that they did. Glad we could reach an agreement. ~Rangeley (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt want you to waste your time. However your objection is ludacrous, you admit that the Iraq War fits the criteria of the war, but that "the war on terror should be" this, should be that. But is is not. It has criteria, and that criteria isnt for you or I to decide. The Iraq War fits it by your own admission, and with that the debate is over. ~Rangeley (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so something is a lie. What? ~Rangeley (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search yields this, "No, they lied about saying it sponsored terrorism." You agree that they labeled them a state sponsor of terror, you just think it was incorrectly labeled, right? ~Rangeley (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"No, they lied about saying it sponsored terrorism. A War on Terrorism should be fought against terrorist organizations and proven terrorist-sponsoring states. It was never proven that Iraq sponsored terrorism, the US just said it did, to justify their aggression. Where is their evidence?" Read it. Lets pick it apart piece by piece. "No, they lied about saying it sponsored terrorism." You admit here that they labeled them a state sponsor (albiet on false pretenses.) "A War on Terrorism should be fought against terrorist organizations and proven terrorist-sponsoring states." Doesnt matter what it should be, all that matters is what it is - a conflict against who they label state sponsors of terror. "It was never proven that Iraq sponsored terrorism, the US just said it did, to justify their aggression. Where is their evidence?" Again, not relevant. The war is against who they label. You admitted they labeled them one, albeit on false pretenses, and that is all that matters. Do not tell me to read it again. Explain your view further if it needs more explaining, because as it is all I see is you saying that Iraq wasnt really a state sponsor of terror - something that does not matter. ~Rangeley (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, if you have anything constructive to say, you know where to find me. ~Rangeley (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You violated 3RR (5 reverts), I think it would be nice if you would undo your fourth and fifth revert. Thank you.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How odd, isn't that exactly my request of you?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Blanking

On 06-July, you blanked Damadola. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I have converted this article to a stub. In the future, please do not blabk pages. If you believe a redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe an article should be written instead of a redirect, please write a stub. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 13:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome, and thanks for your contributions. I noticed you blanked Jack Napier, with the edit summary: "This is the name of an actor". Please keep in mind that you can not delete pages by blanking them. The proper way to deal with not appropriate redirects is nominating them for deletion. However, in this case, while we don't have an article about the Jack Napier the actor, a redirect to Joker (comics) is perfectly acceptable. --Zoz (t) 15:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template WOT

I may be filing a RFC or RFAr soon but want another person opinion. Considering Nescio claims that Iraq is not part of the War on Terrorism, do you think its a violation of WP:POINT that he is now adding minor events to the template related to Iraq War. Furthermore the flooding of the template now seems to be in malice as he once asked for it to be deleted and I believe he edits it now to degrade its information, not improve. I dont want to assume bad faith, so I am asking for others opinions. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nescio Dropping this on your page as you were partially witness to the events. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:War on Terrorism

Ifyou wish to see changes to the template, please discuss them on the template's talk page and, once consensus is reached accordingly, use {{editprotected}}. Circeus 14:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, your proposals have not been discused there at, and frankly, I'd prefer you you to discuss with third parties where appropriate (in this case user:Zer0faults or template talk:War on Terrorism). And in any case, as long as there is not even a hint of consensus coming between zer0faults and User:nescio, I'll remain unwilling at best to unprotect the template. Circeus 04:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you added the Second Chechen War to the template, can you please give a reason for doing this, preferably under the section Template_talk:War_on_Terrorism#New_template and if you have time voice some comments about the new layout I am proposing. Thanks. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWII template

You reverted the Italian flag icon. Problem is that the Flag of "Italy (1861-1946)" doesn't work for some reason - it doesn't show on the template. Suggest you revert your revert unless we can fix the problem. Folks at 137 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What browser do you use? I use Opera 7. Is there a difference between the two flags? Or is the civil ensign ok - would anyone notice the difference? My concern is to differentiate between the kingdom and the current republic. Folks at 137 06:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of the US

Just so you know, that wasn't vandalism -- that was the blasted Google Toolbar bug cutting off my edits. I've uninstalled the beast. --Dhartung | Talk 05:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Not to be intrusive, but are you the user formerly known as Copperchair? The Wookieepedian 10:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm sorry then. He was a problem user I had many run-ins with. I thought you were him because of your similar interests and edits. The Wookieepedian 17:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you then say it is a remarkable coincidence that your user page begins exactly the same as Copperchair's, your first edit is just a few days after Copperchair was blocked, and your edits (Star Wars and The War on Terrorism) are on the same topics as Copperchair's? If you're not him, then you must have known him. PBP 13:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Strikes back

Got ride of the images because they are non essential fair use images that others will ask to be removed when it gets closer to fA status. Basically, we only get a few fair use images, and the critical ones are the lead poster, 2 plot images, a picture of the cast, and one referring to historical references. Other than that, we cant justify having other images. Judgesurreal777 04:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. TomTheHand 17:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. TomTheHand 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, when a user is blocked, his or her IP address is only temporarily blocked; after 24 hours, the block on the IP is lifted. The IP is temporarily blocked again each time the banned user tries to edit, but it is never permanently blocked because most people have IPs that are at least somewhat dynamic. Second, I'm not sure how you can claim that you were "unfairly blocked" and then, in the same post, admit to using the IP 201.199.77.202; that means that you've reverted World War III six times in the past 24 hours, which is a perfectly fair reason for blocking someone under the three revert rule. TomTheHand 20:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

For violating the WP:3RR rule, I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours.--MONGO 19:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ESB

You've been adding images back in for the Empire Strikes Back article, these images are not essential to the article. If you check out the featured articles (considered to be the best work on Wikipedia) like Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith and soon Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, you'll see that these articles are following a pattern and the images are not included because they have been deemed unneccesary. Please stop adding them back to the article. Thank you. The Filmaker 23:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your arguement and why you argue it. But what we are following in terms of symmetry is not just in context of the original trilogy articles, but the entire Star Wars saga articles. The prequel trilogy articles are considered to be some of the best articles on Wikipedia, therefore their format will be followed closely with the original trilogy. Now of course, some liberties can be taken, the original trilogy articles will feature a "Special Edition" section soon enough. But more or less, all of the articles will look pretty much the same format wise. The DVD release photos you added back in were also originally featured in all of the prequel trilogy articles, they were removed because they were felt to be unneccesary and redundant. Just recently, many of us have started to format the original trilogy articles to follow suit with the prequel trilogy articles. The Filmaker 21:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. You will see that the DVD release posters have been removed from the Episode IV and VI articles now as well. The Filmaker 21:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War on Terrorism

Hello, I noticed you have reverted against a consensus in several places. What is your explanation? ~Rangeley (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Iraq War is NOT part of the War on Terrorism, therefore, I removed it AGAIN." - Saw this already. Why is it not part of the War on Terrorism, a specific campaign waged by the United States and allies against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror? ~Rangeley (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do remember that discussion. You failed to explain how it isnt part of the war on terrorism, are you still going to do this or will you finally explain why you find yourself justified to remove information countless times? I would like to think that you are making good faith edits, but your total unwillingness to this point as made this a difficult idea to maintain. All I ask is that you participate in discussion and present an answer to the question other than saying "I already did!" when you infact have not. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand how the issue of whether or not Iraq sponsored terror is relevant to the issue of whether the Iraq War was part of the campaign. I have asked you to explain it to me, and you have to this point been unwilling to explain. Will you change your mind and enlighten me, or do you, as I suspect, just not have any answer? ~Rangeley (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to edit it, please explain why whether or not Iraq was a state sponsor of terror effects whether it was part of the campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you have read what you said, nowhere did you provide an explanation. I have read it too, and I also know its not there. Tell me why whether or not Iraq was a state sponsor of terror effects whether it was part of the campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, copy and paste the answer to "why whether or not Iraq was a state sponsor of terror effects whether it was part of the campaign." If you cant do this its fine, but it will be proof that you know it doesnt exist and we can expect you to stop your baseless edits. If its there, prove me wrong. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are alleging that Iraq was not really a state sponsor of terror, but this is irrelevant to the fact that they were considered one by the USA and allies. This specific campaign is being waged against those they see as state sponsors. Again, explain "why whether or not Iraq was a state sponsor of terror effects whether it was part of the campaign," which is not against those that fit your definition or my definition of a state sponsor of terror, but instead their definition. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for proving you dont have an answer. I hope you stop editing out the information now since that would be totally baseless by your own admission. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is to say it cant? Its not your definition, its theirs. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of your answers addressed the question "why whether or not Iraq was a state sponsor of terror effects whether it was part of the campaign." They address your beleif that Iraq was not a state sponsor of terror. But your beleif doesnt matter. The campaign is against those they beleive to be state sponsors. Calling me biased isnt a substitute for providing an answer. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refute? What is there to refute? The definition of the "War on Terrorism" is "a campaign waged by the USA and allies against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror." They saw Iraq as a state sponsor of terror. Rather than refute this, you throw red herrings out and insist you have addressed it already when you havent. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You have been blocked for violating the three revert rules at Template:War on Terrorism. Circeus 00:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Theaters of operation for the War on Terrorism

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Theaters of operation for the War on Terrorism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theaters of operation for the War on Terrorism. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]