Jump to content

User talk:Zer0faults

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note to Posters

[edit]

Do not restart discussions here, all discussions moved to archive are considered closed and will be ignored. Thank you for your cooperation. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodmusic.png removed from your user page

[edit]
An image or media file, Image:Goodmusic.png, has been removed from your userpage or user talk page because it was licensed as fair use. Wikipedia's fair use policy states that fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see Wikipedia's fair use policy and an accompanying essay on the removal of fair use images. Thank you for your cooperation.

-- tariqabjotu 12:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu all over again

[edit]

It's baaaaack! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous members of Mensa (2nd nomination) ... your 2¢ would be appreciated. --Dennette 16:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me, I have since given my opinion. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strawpolls

[edit]

On Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America you mentioned that you were going to set up some straw polls. I've taken the liberty of devising my own version, an I dea I had even before I read of your intentions. I'll only put them up if you don't object otherwise I'll defer to your version of straw polls and delete what I had written. Let me know. Thanks, Kalsermar 20:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind at all. I was a bit busy at work and did not get around to it, so feel free. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War on Terrorism template

[edit]

I take it your comment on my talk page was aimed at the user currently trying to change the template, not me?! I've advised the user to check the talk page already, he doesn't seem bothered. Budgiekiller 09:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 09:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better if you use his talk page for discussions relating to him in the future as he won't necessarily be watching my talk page. Budgiekiller 09:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War on Terrorism template

[edit]

Why is it included in every terror incident or plot? The end is near 10:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats how templates work, they are included on the articles mentioned within them and related articles. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia more before mass edits as it seems you are a new user. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]

Many thanks. Will this guy never give it a rest? Good working with you. Budgiekiller 12:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of terrorism by the United States

[edit]

I would like you to review your decision, everyone except Self-Described Seabhcán says the edit should take place and that he should have never made the edit being asked to be reverted in the first place. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! Sorry. I've made the requeted edits. Self-Described Seabhcán (in my opinion) did not act properly. —Mets501 (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

[edit]

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than remove Mofomojo's comment on Iraq War yourself, perhaps a report to WP:PAIN is in order. Just include in the request that if they deem it a personal attack they also remove the comment from the talk page. WP:RPA is a tricky guideline and often creates more angst than it solves. --Bobblehead 19:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited out the curses, however you make a good point, if its readded I will just report it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarise, Añoranza is banned for one week and the principals in this matter are encouraged to enter into good faith negotiations regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames for which there are neutral alternative names in common use.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, over two months after the case opened and almost two months after his last edit he is banned for a week. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is he now? Morton devonshire 07:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

[edit]

I asked for unprotection -- it's now free. Morton devonshire 03:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lancet and statistic

[edit]

Thanks for the note on my discussion page. Actually, I have no opinion on whether or not the substance of the material is a good idea to include in the article. I just reacted to what I saw as the stated reason for it being removed in the preceding edit, and it did not appear to be a good reason to remove the statement from the article. To me the statement that had been deleted from the article did not really appear to be "meaningless", and since I think Lancet is generally recognized as a high-quality source that is sufficiently worthy of appearing as a citation in Wikipedia, I went ahead and reverted. If the reason that was offered for removing the statistic had been different, I would not have reverted it. Also I was acting without knowledge of what others thought about the subject matter. Feel free to edit as you see appropriate. —Wookipedian 19:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOT

[edit]

Oops. I missed that. Thanks for the explanation. I undid that change. --Bobblehead 20:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

[edit]
The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation
Dear Zer0faults: Hello, my name is Wikizach; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-17 Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, WikieZach| talk 16:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tompkins Square Park Police Riot

[edit]

Can you please point out to me where you find editorializing in this paragraph:

It was August 1988 when all the city beaches were awash in medical waste in a record heatwave that a riot broke out in Tompkins Square Park. The police attempted to enforce a newly-passed 1:00 a.m. curfew to end drunken streetpunk rock parties that had raged through the night, almost every night. Instead, bystanders, artists, residents, homeless people and political activists were caught up in the police action that took place August 6th. In an editorial entitled Yes, a Police Riot, The New York Times commended Commissioner Benjamin Ward and the New York Police Department for their candor in a report that made clear what images already confirmed for many citizens: the NYPD were responsible for inciting a riot.[1]

There is not one thing in there that is not a fact or observation from The New York Times. Not one. It reads cleaner, and gets the most information in as few words as possible. Please explain to me your reasons for changing it. Thank you. --DavidShankBone 17:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the edit summary. Its written more like a newspaper article or book then an encyclopedia entry. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't tell me how it does that, you are just rephrasing a contention I disagree with. Please tell me how, or point me to a policy or style guide that I can learn from. Thanks. --DavidShankBone 17:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your intro was rambling to be polite. The day is exluded, the event is suppose to be the first sentence and bolded, what you bolded was not even the article title name. The mentioning of medical waste is not relevant to the rest of the article, its simply attempting to paint an atmosphere which is more proper in an article or story then an encyclopedia. The emphasis put on the repetition on the "every night" mentioning is more in line with a story then even an article or encyclopedia. The intro needs more work as it seems to say that the targetted group was not there at all, stating "instead", however that is false even by the supplied sources. If it wasnt for the final sentence stating NYPD, you wouldnt even know the event took place in New York City. So I changed the introduction to be more informative and less editorializing. Again I like you writing style, however its not appropriate. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

[edit]

They are right, the notice board is not the place for it. You could try the mediation that's in progress, or some other part of dispute resolution. Tom Harrison Talk 14:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Plame

[edit]

This needs to get out more. Edit section to get wiki version. I only know of Valerie Plame biography and Aluminum Tubes. It doesn't belong in the "Plame Affair" article since it's not related to uranium. I am not sure of any other articles.

David Corn of The Nation revealed that Plame worked for the CIA on determining the use of Aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq.[1]. All CIA analysts prior to the Iraq invasion believed that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge for nuclear enrichment. [2][3]

--Tbeatty 06:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

[edit]

Please be WP:CIVIL. Using the 'petulant children' comment to make a WP:POINT in this edit is both a policy violation and poor behavior. Regards, CHAIRBOY () 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, since its not uncivil to state someone is acting as they are acting, at least the user in question believes that. As for WP:POINT, its not disruption because the user does not believe its disruptive to talk frankyl and use such terms on that page in particular. Thank you for your comments though. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you remove your warning thingy as the concensus on the page is that its not a WP:CIVIL violation and perfectly permissable when discussing editors in a frank manner, such a manner that is permitted on that page specifically. You can read the posts directly above mine to verify the communities opinions on the matter. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT warning #2. Please don't pee on me and tell me it's raining. - CHAIRBOY () 16:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded on your talk page. Its not raining here btw, is it raining there? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zerofaults, I have to side with Chairboy here. You see, the argument put forth is that it is not incivil for admins to say things like that. As you are not an admin your actions are not protected under that view... and 'on my side' even the admins aren't allowed to act that way. So please do stop. Regardless of whether we have an equitable system or a biased one it is not appropriate. --CBD 17:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok, it was a WP:POINT violation done on purpose, but at least now if Chariboy says something uncivil I know I can issue him a WP:CIVIL warning as he does not believe frank talk is permitted on that page and finds thnigs like petulant child to be offensive. Also I cannot be given 2 warnings for a single posting. I would like one removed please. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove 'em both. The 'you cannot remove warnings' thing is heavily disputed and invalid in the opinion of many. You got the warning. You acknowledged it. You, apparently, aren't going to do it again (don't)... purpose of warning accomplished. --CBD 17:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, I will not do it again, thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking

[edit]

C'mon, wikistalking is pretty poor form. - CHAIRBOY () 19:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF Please try to assume good faith in your fellow editors, actually you already said you don't so I am not sure what to even respond to at this point. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find it fortuitous that you've just happened to end up on various pages I've edited, including User talk:Fact check where you put an editorial in response to my ID request. That, and you were editing Skinner Butte within a few minutes of an edit I did, and so on. This is just a polite request, I hope you'll take it in the spirit with which it was sent. - CHAIRBOY () 20:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are requesting. Are you asking me not to edit pages on Oregon? Or am I just not allowed to add sources to material on Oregon? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I would think an admin would be happy about someone adding sources to an article they edited as well. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Harassment. I'll cite a few examples for your review: [1], [2], and [3]. I believe you are attempting (clumsily) to harass me because of our recent disagreements. I'd like to ask you again politely to stop. - CHAIRBOY () 04:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again I have improved two articles you paricipate on, I wouldnt call that harrassment, please stop threatening me and AGF. You are coming here making wild accusations and its disturbing and uncalled for. I ask you refer to another admin as you have shown a bias now coming here yet again to accuse me of things and are now stating yourself this issue of me improving articles you have edited is "harrassment" --User:Zer0faults 08:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree on this title?

[edit]
I completely agree, makes for an article that contain lots of interesting content, removes allegations and seems encyclopedic. May get a bit large, but all together, nice work Travb. --User:Zer0faults 23:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Lisa. Now if we can get Stone on board, I can request the mediator change the name ASAP. Appreciate your time ;-) Travb (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this title?

[edit]

Per your concern:

"Just so people are aware US Covert Operations would include domestic by its title, so it will include technically hundreds of articles COINTEL PRO etc FBI operations. It may end up being an article that then needs to be split up. --User:Zer0faults 03:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC) "

How about: United States international covert operations Signed: Travb (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That works perfectly, the other wording was not as clear as that. --User:Zer0faults 09:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am awaiting approval from Stone, then we can move forward. Nice to be on the same side. Best wishes and happy editing. Travb (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 State Street up for deletion

[edit]

Hey, I followed some links and ended up at your user page, where I saw that you are a fan of the 17 State Street building. The article is currently up for deletion, so if you're interested, come opine! Zagalejo 23:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zarqawi

[edit]

The information roadmap was about propaganda in general that was used in Iraq bleeding over into the domestic audience, not any specific propaganda campaigns. This was a concern that was brought up in the Washington Post article about the Zarqawi propaganda program, so the two are related. I'm not saying there actually was a Zarqawi Psyop program (otherwise known as a propaganda campaign), but if they was, it would be covered under the roadmap.--Bobblehead 14:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I see your source stating it is covered under that Roadmap, and that the Roadmap was ever initiated into policy? --User:Zer0faults 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the roadmap was not about propaganda bleeding into the US, please read it, I have, in its entirety. While it speaks of a policy the roadmap itself makes clear that targetting civilians is against the rules. As per Synthesis of Published Material, its a violation of WP:OR to say:

Zarqawi PSYOP program is about a PSYOP program. Information Roadmap is about PSYOP programs, so Information Roadmap is about Zarqawi PSYOP Program, the Operations Roadmap mentioned Smith Mundt so Zarqawi is being linked to Smith Mundt. Smith-Mundt is about targetting domestic citizens so Zarqawi program must be targetting domestic citizens. Unfortunatly the Informations Roadmap specifically says dont target them, it also does not mention Zarqawi PSYOP Program. WaPo also says the program did not target US citizens. --User:Zer0faults 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were right

[edit]

Are you psychic or something dude? --Pussy Galore 23:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree!

[edit]

If you don't mind, I'm putting the GTI picture on my page. Oh, and it says "Wolkswagen" a few times on the section. I'm not fixing it since I don't feel I have the right to. Cheers! The RSJ - SPEAK 03:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Fab Five Freddy.JPG

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Fab Five Freddy.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. 18:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fab Five Freddy

[edit]

Not sure what kind of links you are expecting, the an is about 10+ years older then the picture now and as such finding a link to a press pack from so long ago would be quite difficult. --User:Zer0faults 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find any reference to the press pack it came from, how do you know for sure it comes from a prees pack? Where did you got this image from? --Abu Badali 18:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got the image when I used to write for AllHipHop.Com, it was used to promote him appearing at the Smithsonian. --User:Zer0faults 18:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You found a free replacement for this unfree image! Great work!! Congratulations! I swear I tried to find a barnstar to award you, but there's none specific for this kind of action. This is a pitty. Your attitude was exemplar. --Abu Badali 19:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I been having such a horrible day here at Wikipedia, that actually went miles to cheer me up, so thank you as well. --User:Zer0faults 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [4]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [5] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 00:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I just read and archived your comments. Travb (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Fab Five Freddy 2.JPG

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Fab Five Freddy 2.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. 17:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Zer0faults is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults#Log of blocks and bans. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 01:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Is there any particular reason you've decided to log my uncharacteristic and unfortunate outburst for all posterity? Mackensen (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're committed to an incomplete record; I suppose that's your prerogative. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate an answer to my question. Mackensen (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its the start of a RfC I will be putting it back, deleting subpages that have negative information about you is quite unforutunate but will also go into the RfC I guess. Also please do not edit subpage simply because you do not like them. I went out of the way to make sure it didnt link to you so as to not disturb you as that was the arguement with subpages in kellymartins case of being disruptive. I will simply leave the information here now.

AN/I

  • 21:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 21:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • 03:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you have a good day. --User:Zer0faults 10:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen didn't delete the page. He asked for a second opinion, and another Admin deleted it. [6]. Thatcher131 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that as soon as you said this Zerofaults went and changed his opinion on your RFA from support to oppose. How transparent and vindictive. --Cyde Weys 14:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he changed his vote before my remark above. Thatcher131 17:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

[edit]

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 20:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 66.213.90.2

[edit]

After welcoming you to Wikipedia in May, I was checking back to see how things went. I saw the notice about your arbitration on the Signpost newsletter.

Since you're no longer new here, I don't know whether to (a) admire your ability to last as long as you did or (b) to think you're a fool to voluntarily take the increased stress resulting from your article editing choices. To tell the wikitruth, I had just observed Merecat get permabanned, allegedly as a Rex sockpuppet, only because he befriended Maggie. She got permabanned for having the bad luck to cross some heavy POV pushers when they were simply in a bad mood for other reasons. Ajdz left on his own accord; at least he and Merecat didn't suffer the stress that you and Maggie did.

Hmm, looking further at the Arbitration, you've moved on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults Zer0faults has abandoned that account and opened a new account NuclearUmpf (talk • contribs) [218]. Thatcher131 16:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll just put some final thoughts here, in case you check back. It's just as well, since I prefer to avoid anything that would end up an extended one-on-one conversation in Wikipedia; just the occasional injection of opinion by an outsider.

I really do not know what to think of Wikipedia. It's the messy house of obsessive-compulsize packrats yet with some interesting knick-knacks and the occassional valuable collectable. If you all would just admit you're a blog in a wiki format, instead of a reference encyclopedia, everyone could move along to just getting along, at a lower intensity level. The conflict, and stress and drama, is caused by the idealistic beliefs (about "truth" and wikitruthiness and POV vs selective facts and et cetera) clashing with the mix of realities. (Various realities exist by topic and/or by contributors set, for article quality, content, level of conflict, etc.)

The basic conflict is being able to see what Wikipedia IS versus what you each wish and hope it to be. If it can become thoses wishes and hopes, and how to get there, is an interesting question and why I check in occassionally to observe.

Sincerely, Just an Observer.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

[edit]

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Iraq documents

[edit]

Now that the official page seems to have been closed, do you have copies you'd like to share. Thanks. —Bromskloss 22:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new board for people interested in conservative issues, if you wish to join, just add yourself to Category:Conservative issues--RCT 20:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but no, I am not a conservative. --NuclearZer0 21:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAGN and MAP

[edit]

Merge? I would not oppose. --evrik (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the gallery into PAGN and created the redirect. Thanks for your reply. The only other user who edited that article had not been on Wikipedia for some time. --NuclearZer0 14:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I guess I jumped the gun, seen only two people had edited the article. I am actually looking to build the MAP article next week possibly after I add more to the PAGN article, then I will remove the redirect I guess. --NuclearZer0 14:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

[edit]

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

[edit]

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

[edit]

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gunbound image 1.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Gunbound image 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Freshmen Adjustment 2.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Freshmen Adjustment 2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Get well soon mixtape cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Bad_Eisenkappel.jpg

[edit]
Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Bad_Eisenkappel.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 08:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 09:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:Terrorism

[edit]

Greetings,

I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tak Flag.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tak Flag.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter

[edit]
The Terrorism WikiProject
April 2008 Newsletter

News

ArchivesDiscussion

Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Active Endeavor Forces 1.jpg

[edit]

File:Active Endeavor Forces 1.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Active Endeavor Forces 1.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Active Endeavor Forces 1.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

[edit]




To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

[edit]

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Lookout Mountain Air Force Station.JPG

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lookout Mountain Air Force Station.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year

[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

File permission problem with File:Tak Flag.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Tak Flag.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

The file File:John Crash Matos.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ David Corn (September 5, 2006). "What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA". The Nation (web only).
  2. ^ Dec 2002 ODCI (CIA) Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions
  3. ^ Jun 2002 ODCI (CIA) Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions