User talk:SJSA/archive2

Archive

2008

WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War

Kindly point me to the relevant guideline that says a brief sentence is inappropriate. Thankyou. Dynablaster (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know where you are going with this. Removal of information that fails NPOV is fine -- as was the case in this instance (diff) because saying "Koppelman found reason to doubt both Sada's and al-Tikriti's statements" lends credence to his conclusion -- but that sentence has now been corrected. There is no guideline, so far as I am aware, that prevents editors from adding a short sentence, effectively saying Person X disagrees with Person Y, before furnishing a reference (or 3 as in this case). If you want to expand criticism, please go right ahead, but I have deliberately avoided doing so because the main purpose of this article is to describe the various allegations re Saddam's illegal weaponry, and what may have happened to it, if undetected by UN weapon inspectors. With this in mind, I'm going to restore these sourced additions and ask that you not remove them again without good reason, and without citing directly the relevant guidline. Dynablaster (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have posted the same message to the talk page of the relevant article, here. Dynablaster (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

M113

re: Do not repeat your edit to the M113 Armored Personnel Carrier article again without discussing it on the talk page: Talk:M113 Armored Personnel Carrier SJSA 20:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? Who are you? The police? Wallie (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not violating any policy. If anything you are violating the policy by issuing threats and just being plain nasty and aggressive. Wallie (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I read what you said. I have encountered this sort of thing before. I add something to an article, and it is reverted, usually with a nasty comment. If I put it back, it is reverted again and says "see talk page". I look at the talk page, and there is nothing there. I put something on the talk page and then revert it back. At this stage my latest edit is again reverted, and a discussion starts. The discussion goes on and on. Eventually it dies. Guess what. Nothing has changed, and I have lost again. I guess this won't be any different. By the way. Do you have something personal against Jim Gavin? Wallie (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Quite frankly its not my fault that you missed the gigantic section in the talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:M113_Armored_Personnel_Carrier#Clarification_of_Unofficial_Nickname_.22Gavin.22 2nd down in the table of contents. Next time look a little closer and you will be able to avoid problems like this. SJSA 22:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you not use a more diplomatic tone? ... You did mention that I look at the talk page. I don't really want to go back to some old discussion. You were making a point. You should put something in the talk page yourself. You could precis some of the arguments in the previous discussion. Wallie (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Army

• Sorry about the Photobucket links, I didn't know that rule, but nonetheless many of those weapons are clearly not in the inventory of the Mexican Army and must be removed. I have stated in the discussion page that the Army Recognition website is bogus and unreliable with no confirmation to demonstrate any of it's claims. How can it stand as the sole evidence to make all these wild claims? I base my knowledge in what I have seen through photographs, videos, and news coverage as well as the SEDENA's own website. The Mexican Armed Forces pages here in Wikipedia have suffered gross exagerations by crazy fanatics in the past so I am not surprised that some people will attribute equipment to the Mexican Armed forces that they don't have in order to make a false boast to their internet buddies. We have to remain objective and show evidence, it is ridiculous that the page claims the Mexican Army has the XM307, Beretta Cx4 Storm, and even the XM25. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• I was wondering if my actions and edits in the Mexican Army article constitute as vandalism or any sort of violation of the rules of Wikipedia. There is another person who keeps reverting the article no matter what sort of edit is made to it and has threatened to accuse me to the admins for vandalism if I keep undoing his reversions. I have stated in the discussion page why I made the changes that I made, particularly I have removed one source that does not fit in with wikipedia's own guidelines as a "reliable source." Ocelotl10293 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)