User talk:V7-sport/Archive 1

Iran Air Flight 655

Hi, I'm reverting your edit of Iran Air Flight 655 due to the breakage of a reference - feel free to replace by a proper fix. --Chealer (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I'm really talking about breakage, not just removal. See the red line in the references section. I reverted again the edit - again, feel free to follow with a proper edit.--Chealer (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Ventura

The article does not claim he was a SEAL, nor does it include anything about him claiming to be a SEAL. Refuting something never claimed is simply a gratuitous pot-shot. I've removed it. Unless there is reliable documentation that Ventura claimed to have been a SEAL, including such a refutation in the article is completely unnecessary. Yworo (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a warning about your original research at the Jesse Ventura page. In violation of Wikipedia policy you have twice inserted the claim that while Ventura won two medals in Vietnam, he did not win a third. The source provided shows that he did indeed win the two medals, however it in no way mentions the third that you have reinserted into the article. Logic dictates that there are any number of medals he DIDN'T receive, but without a source describing that fact it is entirely non-notable. Adding the information without a source was against policy, but adding it twice is bordering on vandalsim. Please do not edit any more material into the article that you do not have a source for. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was the most awesomely awesome hand with a line through it graphic I have ever seen. The page however is properly sourced and if you can provide some sources that state otherwise please post them. Until that time please leave the edits as they are. Thank you. V7-sport (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles . Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.Your second warning for adding unsourced material at the Jesse Ventura article. Despite being alerted to the fact that you were adding unsourced material you have three times returned to do so. Please do not vandalise the encyclopedia further. Weakopedia (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have properly sourced everything and not added original research, please read and understand the reliable source page before you accuse me of adding unsourced material. Further, you do not speak for Wikipedia so please do not refer to articles as "ours". Thank you V7-sport (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport[reply]

Can you have a look at your last edit at Jesse Ventura? The grammar of the sentence now seems to be broken. Cs32en Talk to me 10:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see the articles talk. V7-sport (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport[reply]

WP:3RR

You seem to have violated WP:3RR by performing more than three reverts in less than 24 hours on Jesse Ventura. Please refrain from performing any more reverts because there will be a report to WP:ANI/3RR about you if you continue. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we wont revert. We will re edit. Thank you so much for your determination and hard effort to get to the truth of the situation Dr.K. V7-sport (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold in Wikipedia is not truth. Only verifiability (WP:V). Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aiming for both Doc. A new, non reverted Edit with the word response struck, etc. will be up shortly. You will be dazzled. V7-sport (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport[reply]

Can't wait. I'll be grateful if it pans out as promised. I hate conflict. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be grateful too ;-) V7-sport (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport[reply]

Your edit was great. I am grateful you actually kept your promise :) I only removed "claiming" per WP:WTA#CLAIM and replaced it by "stating". I hope you don't mind. Thank you and take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'm glad this finally got hammered out. Thank you Dr.K. V7-sport (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport[reply]

It was a pleasure, and I thank you in return for being so understanding and a great editor to work with. It was very nice meeting you. All the best. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, thank you!

		The Half Barnstar
		For working with those you disagree with to create a finished product in the Jesse Ventura article, that is finer than either of you could have created alone, Presented by Rapier1 (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rapier1

Apologies for Iraq War talk silliness

V7-sport, I wanted to apologize for my snarky comment last time--I was a little tired. Sorry about that, let me know if this new status compromise works for you. Again, deepest apologies and I look forward to working with you on this issue. Publicus 17:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I appreciate you taking the time to post that. V7-sport (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport.[reply]

Small request

Wow, I see this Jesse Ventura thing has been going on a long time. Popped by to ask you to always use an WP:Edit summary when saving an edit. Make's everything a lot easier for those you are collaborating with. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make it a point to do so. V7-sport (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport[reply]

Appreciated, thank you! Bigger digger (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War

That is the United States's view of the war, the state department release says nothing of the Iraqi governments view of the war. You have yet to provide any evidence at all that states that the Iraqi government considers the war over. As Iraq is a soveriegn nation, in international law the United State's view on whether or not the war continues is utterly meaningless in regards to the position of the soveriegn Iraqi government.XavierGreen (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on your talk page.V7-sport (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no declarations of war, if thats what your looking for then good luck to you. There have been no declared wars since 1945. If you want proof of combat, that i can provide. But if you are going to argue that i need to provide declarations of war to prove that Iraq is fighting, then you might as well argue that the Iraq war did not take place at all since none of the belligerents offically declared war. Undeclared wars have been fought since the dawn of humanity, there is no requirement among historians that a declaration be given in order for a conflict to be called a war.XavierGreen (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I answered this on your page. V7-sport (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Ressolution of 2002 was not a declaration of war there is a signifigant legal difference between and authorization of use of force and a declaration of war. The Russian Civil War, the Mongol Invasions, and several of the other bloodiest wars in history had no declarations of war, a declaration is not nessesary for polities to begin hostilities against each other. Ants and Chimpanzees dont issue declarations of war before starting their wars. No polity issues statements regularly throughout a conflict that it is still ongoing, thats a rediculous and unreasonable thing to ask for. As ive stated before there are a myriad of new reports stating that the war is ongoing, and i would think that that is proof enough.XavierGreen (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

According to US law a resolution of force and a declaration of war are not the same thing, see [[1]] for a congressional research report on the issue. The united states has not fought a declared war since the end of world war 2. Globalsecurity.org lists the Iraq war on its list of active conflicts, icasualties.com continues to have an active listing for the iraq war. Both are highly notable and respected sources heavily cited in wikipedia.XavierGreen (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Supreme court which affirmed the Constitutional legality (IE only congress can declare war) in Doe V Bush which stated that congress had given the president the right to "declare war" with the Joint resolution of 2002. Globalsecurity.org does not trump the state department, the president or the pentagon in terms of WP:Weight, indeed, it is arguably not a reliable source. V7-sport (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to inform you that up to this point I had good faith in your attempts to contribute however now after you erased my proposition to go back to the discussion of the breakdown of the dates into phases and XavierGreen's support on this issue I have decided that this would be a good time for a neutral editor or an administrator to make a rulling. You also have not shown any will in finding a compromise solution with me or Xavier or Publicus or the anonymous editor and I am deeply sorry for that. I had hoped we could find some common ground.Diefgross (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not erased anything, I have moved the text of our conversation hers so it could be kept track of. That is verifiable in my log. I don't know what other proposition you are talking about. And no, you haven't assumed good faith throughout this. By all means, take it to whomever. The compromise is that you find a verifiable quote from reliable sources with the weight to supersede that of the State Department, Pentagon and President. Otherwise your assertions are original research. V7-sport (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Doe Vs Bush was dismissed, the court refused to hear the case as it has in every other similar case presented before the court. You are confusing the executives right to use military force with congresses right to declare war. If you ask anyone in the executive branch they will tell you they do not have the right to declare war, but they have the right to use military force (through the militia clause and so forth).XavierGreen (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was dismissed, that's the whole point; In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully-developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war. The point here was that the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" gave the president discretion to "declare war". V7-sport (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says no where in the Authorization For Use of Military Force that the president has been delgetated the power to declare war. The mere fact that you put this in quotes lets me to believe that you already understand this. The president has the power to carry out warfare, he does not have the power to issue a declaration of war. The courts stated above that it could not intervene because Congress had not delegated its constitutional power to declare war to the President.XavierGreen (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took the quote from Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002#U.S._law Which is a Wikpedia page and therefore always correct. The court case was dismissed because the judges found that congress was acting in conjunction with the executive branch when they authorized the use for military action. When you write; "The courts stated above that it could not intervene because Congress had not delegated its constitutional power to declare war to the President." that is essentially the opposite of what judge Judge Sandra Lea Lynch wrote in her opinion. This too is from Doe_v._Bush An extreme case might arise, for example, if Congress gave absolute discretion to the President to start a war at his or her will... Plaintiffs' objection to the October Resolution does not, of course, involve any such claim. Nor does it involve a situation where the President acts without any apparent congressional authorization, or against congressional opposition... To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress. This is a PDF of the case that was filed and rejected. In it you will see that the case that the president acted without congressional approval was rejected. V7-sport (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My statement, right here [2], was removed from the talk page. I vote for the proposal that was given in the past. Separate the dates of the war into three phases,... How do you explain this?Diefgross (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy no need for an explanation, as seen by this [3], you yourself removed both my and XavierGreen's sentences from the main discussion page of the article.Diefgross (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I apologize, I did not intentionally remove your post and will restore it. V7-sport (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vantage-Halliburton

Honestly, I couldn't find a "third party" comment on this, although other sites bought up the Vantage facility (the Popular Mechanics article for one) none specifically mentioned them having connections to Halliburton. In fact Googling some of Vantage's general business info I found no direct links to Halliburton. My guess is that since Halliburton is an oil company and polymers come from oil byproducts and the burial liners are made of polymers - thats as far as the connection goes. But it was the "red flag" that Ventura and Jones were jumping on in the show so I figured it should be mentioned somewhere. I'm sure it's just Ventura/Jones paranoia, and I bet I could probably link my local dry-cleaners back to Halliburton in someway. Does that mean they're plotting world domination? Anyway I know the show is a touchy subject so if you think the statement will cause problems then remove it. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and removed it. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Manning

Please can you explain how citation of articles on the CNN and Guardian websites, amongst others, constitutes original research. And please can you also explain how you interpret BLP to justify your removal of large sections from this article. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about posting my query in the wrong place, and thank you for your prompt response. I'm not entirely satisfied though. How, for instance, is a video showing Ellsberg uttering Ellsberg's words a case of poorly-documented material unsuitable for BLP? And the Guardian? BBC? CNN? All now removed. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply to your emails regarding the standard offer

I would suggest you re-read WP:OFFER. It's pretty clear on what it is and how it works. It is not a binding arrangement, just a set of suggestions for facilitating your return, so I'm not sure why you are asking me if it was a "legitimate" offer. It's just a suggestion, there is no guarantee that you will be unblocked even if you have followed the terms to the letter. As th last admin to deny an unblock request from you I will not be the one reviewing your request, although I may particpate in any subsequent discussion about it.

I don't know why you would be unable to log in to to other WMF projects unless you were globally blocked, which seems unlikely. In any event, you wouldn't have to use the same username and it would not be considered socking to edit on any site other than this one, but you will probably be asked to log in and verify the connectieond with any account you are claiming as yours. You are not required to promise anything specific, but it would certainly help your case if any unblock request you post shows a clear understanding of what edit warring is and why it is not tolerated, along with a general agreement to avoid the user you were repeatedly edit warring with. Easy enough at the moment as they are also still blocked and they have engaged in socking as recently as last month, so the standard offer is off the table for them. If, when you request unblocking the matter is taken to AN you can ask that any statement you care to make be copied over from here. Hope this helps clarify the situation for you, feel free to ask if you have any further questions, I'll be watching this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]