User:Jarcanist/Archive1

gender versus sex
From meriam webster: Main Entry: 1gen·der Pronunciation: 'jen-d&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle English gendre, from Middle French genre, gendre, from Latin gener-, genus birth, race, kind, gender -- more at KIN

1 a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass

2 a : SEX b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

"Sex" is more specific. Historically, it was not synonomous with "gender." As a bit of a prescriptive grammarian, it rankles me to see the two confused.

I do not care to create an account to discuss it further. Wikipedia takes all types of input, including mine.


 * You're being an ass about this. It isn't a matter of being a prescriptive grammarian, and I am not confused about same. Sex and Gender are two very, very different things. Note I link off my home node to berdache (which I now realize is pejorative, but I digress). I think in the text affected, It is interesting to note that the sex of this character changed between movies and television series., that since we did not see a penis or a vagina and the Care Bears are anatomically barren, the gender of the creature changed. In fact, I can be a human male, or a potted flower, or a giant white whale, and have a gender that is unique to me. Be it male, female, berdache, or something else. The gender of the bear changed, not the sex. The latter would have been impossible. I would imagine (and I looked) that images from the actual movie are copyrighted and as such do not appear on the intarweb very much, but here is a reasonably good approximation of said rabbit. Sex change not possible, gender change entirely possible.


 * Lastly, perhaps to summarize it more clearly, as I've beaten around the, ahem, bush, somewhat here, is that gender is a role, and sex is a physical apparatus. You look at a Care Bear and you tell me which is possible to change, outside of fanfiction. Avriette 16:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

vfd/delete
LOL! I absolutely love your edit summary. :-) Okay, I don't exactly see the adjectives "uncooperative" and "childish" as applicable, but I agree it would have been nice if I had left a message for you.  I do apologize for not taking the time to give you that courtesy.  To be honest, though, I hadn't realized I had changed more than one.  I recall your name from the Arbiter article, where I eventually changed it from Speedy to VfD, but I didn't realize I had changed any other tags you submitted.  I had to go through my contributions to find the other one.  I'm sorry.  If I had realized I was changing multiple submissions by the same person, I probably would have left you a note.  I didn't realize it.  BTW, I agree with you about the amount of trivia (I still use the word "fancruft") in Wikipedia.  I don't envy you the job of cleaning up the Care Bear situation.  Happy editing.  SWAdair | Talk  06:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, the non-boilerplate version
Oh my! I love your advogato diary, and I love your edit summaries! Just a piece of advice: correcting Wikipedia braindeath by means of hand editing and VfDs is a hopeless activity. I honestly wouldn't bother with the star trekkies, etc., unless you have some backup (team of people, editing tools, policy) on your side. Charles Stewart 01:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * vi is my editing tool. as far as policy, we shall see. I'm starting on care bears now. That's a low-irritation target. the various trills may upset people, but that's a ways off. Avriette 22:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Howzit
Unfortunately, I don't have irc access. I (gasp) don't have online access at home, but I've been seriously considering RR. That way I could do something more productive at home than play Morrowind. :-) Anything you would like to ask, feel free to.  You can either leave it on my talk page or e-mail me at SWAdair@computermail.net (warning -- do not include the string "wiki" in the subject field or it will get filtered into my mailing list folder, which gets swamped).  I usually check e-mail about once a day and am pretty good about responding promptly.  SWAdair | Talk  03:53, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fancruft
Hey, just read some of your recent stuff in your diary with respect to fancruft, and if you haven't already, you should definitely check out Wikipedia talk: Fancruft. This subject understandably comes up a lot. My personal attitude is that, if there exists a group of related stub articles, they should be combined into a single, possibly worthwhile article; take a look at The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time characters for a good example. Originally each section of this article was its own article, which was quite annoying.

I understand that you might reject such content as being encyclopedia-worthy at all because of its limited scope and influence, but I tend to lean towards inclusionism and am embarassed to admit I wrote the original article on Vespene gas, so I suppose I can't really talk. Deco 05:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I just finished Care Bears. I wish you hadn't shown me Vespene gas, which also frightens me. However, I am suitably satiated from my carebears jihad that I will leave the wikipedia alone for a few days. Then I may have some content to add. I have some new pictures for USMC weapons systems that we don't have and are not copyrighted (gubbermint and all).


 * Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your cleanup and if you think Vespene gas should go I would understand. I've conducted a number of efforts that mysteriously met violent opposition, such as changing the archaic British spelling "connexion" to "connection", but you have to edit for what you believe in. Keep up the good fight. Deco 02:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blowing Shit Up...
Yeah. I do like blowing shit up. Consider it a private passion of mine. Avriette 21:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...and other military topics
Hi Avriette and thanks for the note. Pointers for aircraft (including helos) are at WikiProject Aircraft, where you'll also find links to the category system and current standard layout for these articles. I standardised your CH-21 Shawnee article as an example.

While there are now some quite evolved standards for warships and aircraft, standards for weapon systems more generally are all over the shop. There seems to have been an effort at creating a navigational template for missiles, but it hasn't been widely rolled out, and perhaps was really only intended for general articles on categories of missile rather than specific systems anyway. Similarly, while a standard spec table for small arms was developed, it hasn't been implemented widely (and WikiProject Weaponry is now listed as inactive anyway).

There have been at least two attempts to develop a broad-based and consistent way to categorise weapons, but neither went very far.

Given the mess, at the moment I really only try to make sure that weapons articles are reasonably well-classified, and that aircraft weapon systems carry the template. I also list new aircraft articles here and standardise them when I get the time (currently bogged down in mid-February).

If you want to have a stab at it, some kind of consistency is desperately needed for weapons on Wikipedia. At the moment, it's pretty much a model of the worst aspects of collaborative editing, so it'll be a long-term project! Cheers --Rlandmann 03:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I disagree very much with your re-edit of the Shawnee's page. It isn't particularly important, as the flying banana hasn't flown since 1964 outside of air shows. However, see the fa/18 (sorry, c/p) and you've got this fancy table on the right. I created the table for the shawnee from a "template" i had been using which I now realize that had been used from the weapons systems page -- the M203 (although of course, I used wikinotation instead of html) example. I like it a lot, and used it on, for example. the GAU-17, M14 (rifle) among others. It is a very standardized, almost "trading card" like format, from which it is easy to discern all aspects of the weapon, plane, whatever. I think the format of:

General Characteristics
....
 * Some Metric: Some Value


 * is just harder to read, and less attractive. It also is less machine parseable. Perhaps I should posit some RfC's.... I don't particularly see an F/A-18 Hornet being all that very different from an AGM-62 Walleye or a M101A1. I'm not sure why they should all have a different look and feel. 00:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Warnings
And let me tell you, politely, to fuck off. I'll edit what I fucking feel like editing. Save your threats for somebody who cares. Everyking 13:40, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Superbombs
Though I think that the category of Category:Superbombs is a little silly anyway, I can hardly see why Fat Man and Little Boy didn't qualify as them, in their time. Sure, they look pretty puny now compared to some of the H-bombs, but in 1945 they were pretty dang super. If it is just yields we are talking about, then MOAB shouldn't be on the chart at all with the Tsar Bomba. I don't get the logic. --Fastfission 04:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I figured somebody would take issue with it. See Ivy King for what a "super bomb" is compared to Little Boy. They weren't superbombs even for their time. At the time they were being detonated, much bigger and higher yield bombs were being developed. The reason BLU-82 belongs there and MOAB as well alongside Tsar Bomba is we are talking two entirely separate types of bombs. The Tsar Bomba was the biggest, meanest nuclear weapon ever built. The BLU-82 (and T-12) are incredibly destructive conventional weapons. Superbombs within their "division" if you will.Avriette 04:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: the stub
Regardless of "Taiwan" being the prevalent common name for the country, "Taiwan" is only the main part of the territories that ROC administers. The entire process has been gone through serious discussion, and the decision was based on consensus. You may know I have been trying to differentiate Taiwan geography stubs from non-Taiwan-related ROC geography stubs. &mdash; Instantnood 10:11, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Like I am fond of saying in other places fuck them all. I can't understand it or tolerate it, but I am left with no choice. They'll just be the way they are, and one day they'll reach enlightenment. Avriette 20:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: Danube Class Starship
To my knowledge, all of the text at the top and in the ship descriptions is original. The data given under the "Specifications" heading were mostly taken from the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual, but weren't structured there in the same way. I'd call it fair use. -- Djinn112 02:39, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem like "fair use" to me, but if you can cite something, I'll be glad to read it. Otherwise it seems like "verbatim copying." Avriette 02:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks and...
I wrote that stuff about Sternbach a while ago and never got around to submitting it. Thanks anyway, for the virtual kick in the pants that finally got me to post it. Anyway, if Danube class starship pisses you off, just wait until you see stuff like Springfield class starship and Merced class starship. Yes believe it or not, we do actually have entire pages on starship classes that have never appeared on screen, never been mentioned in dialogue; just invented by fans for starships that have never appeared on screen and only been briefly mentioned in dialogue. AlistairMcMillan 07:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Meant to add, you can find links to lots of other fancruft class starhips in the history of Template:Trekshipclass. If you think your sanity can take it. AlistairMcMillan 07:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New Jersey
please convert metrics to english units. 69.143.133.51 02:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jake from Daria
Hi Alex: How are you? Thank you for your note on my user page. I did the page on Jake from Daria because that night I wasnt inspired to write about much else, and if you look at Daria, other people have written about other characters so I felt I had the green light to go ahead. I do hope that future generations appreciate my writings, and yours and everyone else's because that is precisely why this wikipedia is so lovable and enjoyable; we break away from Brittanica and other, normal encyclopedias in that we cover topics they certainly would never cover.

Apart from that, you were right about pointing out the "clear" situation. English isnt my first language, so I couldnt find a better word for the suit's color. But today I realized Ocean Blue is more like it and so I corrected it. BTW, Ive never seen a suit of that color either, that must be a cartoon writer's imagination invention!

Anyways, happy trails around wikipedia and I hope youre enjoying your experience here as much as I am!

Thank you and God bless you! Sincerely yours, "Antonio Mr. Glitter Shine Martin"

Superfluous Clarfication?
Is it really necessary to add that it is a video game and hence fiction? I have never seen anything related to Star Wars that wasn't fictional, and should any one follow the link provided, it makes that abundantly. Frankly, your edit seems a little silly and pedantic. -- Maru Dubshinki 04:32 PM Saturday, 02 April 2005
 * It is silly to put entries about Star Wars characters into the wikipedia. That, however, is really another discussion. See Template:Fiction. This is a recurring problem in the wikipedia: fiction is presented as being somehow factual. With the vast networks of fictional characters and places, such as with middle earth, it is possible for people to become confused or at least misled. One such example of this is Donald O'Brien. Please also note discussion at the recent discussion of deleting middle-earth items. I'll quote Korath for you,
 * It's just as easy to paste a "In J. R. R. Tolkien's fictional Middle-earth, " at the start, though, which is pretty much what the template says to do.
 * So, my question to you is, do you have a problem with the explicit classification as fiction (adding 'the video game')? For further context, you may wish to see my user page where I discuss some of my opinions on the subject. For what it is worth, the page was discovered by a random walk through the wikipedia. I was initially confused, then recognized some of the content, and added the explicit classification that it is fiction. Just because you have all the figurines and have played all the games and watched all the movies doesn't mean everyone else has. For their sake, please indicate when something is fiction. Or, to quote the guidelines,


 * If you add fictional information, clearly distinguish fact and fiction.


 * Avriette 22:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sheesh, don't be so uptight! No, I don't really have a problem with it- I'm not going to revert it or anything; it just seemed a waste of time to me, and I was letting you know so.  And the 'fictional' data that was presented as 'factual' was in fact 'factual'- 'Atris is a X in X' is completely factual.  And really, does anyone think that a person from something called 'Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2' is going to be anything but fictional? C'mon, have some respect for the reader's intelligence!  But arguing over something like this makes me the pedantic one, so I'm gonna stop now. -- Maru Dubshinki 08:04 PM  Saturday, 02 April 2005

Ship-table images
Hi! If you don't make a picture a thumbnail, you can set it to 300px and fill the box. (Note that the caption then has to be added as well as the picture's alternate text.) With PD images, you can potentially save editors on other wikis a few steps by loading them to the Wikimedia Commons, instead of just to en:wikipedia. &mdash;wwoods 21:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have ranted many times that the wikipedia needs to push more towards machine-parsable data. In the case of making a picture a thumbnail, rather than including a new sequence:

image... image description


 * the following is much easier to parse:




 * I use thumbnails judiciously in my contributions to tables. I don't see why it needs to "fill the width of the table", and I don't think it looks any worse for it. As far as wikimedia commons goes, I haven't figured that part out yet, but I am not opposed to doing it. I could write a bot to upload all my images to the wikicommons. Note that on my user page I discuss my desire to have an entirely machine parsable wikipedia. That is until somebody comes up with an API for mining it. Right now it's fine to use, but is near impossible to use for automated requests. Eg., I want to write an app that is able to extract all specifications for any USMC weapon. Right now, that's close to possible because I've been so hard at work standardizing those pages. But the further you stray from that, say WikiProject Ships, or WikiProject Planes, you need a new parser. Standardize data, and it becomes a much more valuable resource. Make it machine parsable, and an API can be written. This is A Good Thing. Avriette 01:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've also been making an effort to standardise things with respect to the WikiProject Ships' data. I've written a template based table that basically covers all or at least all the most important bases when it comes to putting ship data in. The advantage of it is also that being in standard format, data can be parsed from it a good deal easily than with the standard table format that is followed at the moment. At the moment there are sufficient variations to make it almost impossible to write a parser to extract data.


 * This comes into thumbnails vs full-width images as well. I think that full-width images look better when compared to thumbnails. Also, with my template table it does matter. The variable for the image contains the standard information about the image like its filename, location, alt attribute etc. Then there is a separate variable which deals with the caption for the image, thus making it machine-parsable. I hope you will look at what I've done and see what you think. David Newton 14:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That would be fine if people followed the convention. However, there are cases like A-4_Skyhawk where people have NOT followed the convention. If we use thumbnails and standard templates, we can begin to have the workings of machine parsable data. I really think that is a goal we should work towards. I would love to write an API that could pull down information from the wikipedia. Imagine:

#!/usr/bin/perl use Wikipedia::Article; my $wpa = Wikipedia::Article->new('A-4 Skyhawk') my $image_loc = $wpa->imageloc;


 * for Specific kinds of articles, such as ships, planes, missiles, et cetera, it should be equally possible to issue commands like:

my $max_speed = $wp_sidewinder->max_speed;


 * There's no reason *not* to strive for conformability. There are some among us who take a more anarchistic view on things, like the wikipedia is a free-form encyclopedia, and every article should have its own "style" and so on. In fact, look at the history of the CH-21 Shawnee and you tell me which revision (mine or Rlandmann's) was more machine-parsable. It's probably an uphill battle, but I'm willing to fight tooth and nail for it. Many of these things can be bot'ed. The WWW::Wikipedia module on cpan is more or less limited to this:

use WWW::Wikipedia; my $wiki = WWW::Wikipedia->new;

## search for 'perl' my $result = $wiki->search( 'perl' );

## if the entry has some text print it out if ( $result->text ) { print $result->text; }

## list any related items we can look up  print join( "\n", $result->related );


 * This is useless. I can pull down the article (I can also search), but I still have to do my own Screen scraping for the data I want. This means I have to write subclasses and lots and lots of logic that understands each and every variation on the theme. That's ludicrous. Avriette 03:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * (Well, since you're back...) "Machine-parsable" is good, but if we have to choose, "human-parsable" is more important. Scaling an image down from 300 pixels to 270 means giving up 10% of the width, and ~20% of the area; it's a small, but non-trivial, loss. Anyway, I don't see why it's harder for a program to recognize
 * {|..[[Image:..]]..|} than {|..[[Image:..|thumb|..]]..|}.
 * &mdash;wwoods 07:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Johnny McGovern
Hey there. Thanks for the note. Truth be told, I don't find Johnny McGovern to be very funny. I find him kind of trite and boring, and he's got a horrendous bad singing voice (though I doubt that was the point.) I am unaware of any background he has on Broadway, but I am extremely certain that the majority of his fame steps from his "Gay Pimp" character and his exposure to the gay community due to "Soccer Practice." If you wish to expand the article that's entirely up to you, but I've entered everything I consider to be relevant. Cheers. Pacian 05:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hanauma Bay
Hi! The Hanauma Bay article definitely needs expanding, and your effort would be much appreciated. Since you do not mind my "merciless edits" I'll be happy to help you out. As to photos, my philosophy is this (and I provide a lot of photos to Wikipedia): "When a better photo comes along, use it (instead)". By (instead) in parenths I mean: leave the old one in there for awhile, the length of time dependent upon how obviously better the new one(s) is/are. Put your photos up in the article. If they are an improvement, I (or someone else) will quietly remove the less valuable and obviously redundant one(s). The idea is to constantly improve (as well as expand) the Wikipedia, and there is only limited room for photos in most articles. BTB, nice to meet you. How are you getting out here so much? Or was it one time visit? - Marshman 04:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, we first came out in November of 2004 for what was supposed to be our wedding and honeymoon (a conflict with my then-employer prevented wedding from happening). We completely fell in love with Oahu, after staying at both Ko'Olina and Waikiki (the Ihilani and the Hyatt, respectively). Then I interviewed for a position on the Subaru telescope for Fujitsu, which was on the big island, Hilo-side. They paid for that trip. After the trip to Hilo, I changed employers and decided I wasn't going to get caught up in the job again and let the wedding wait 6 months or a year. It was time to head back to Oahu, this time to really get married, at the Mililani Hongwanji temple. I start with the new employer on Monday, 4/25. However, we have bought a timeshare between the three trips (three trips to HI in 6 mos!), and will probably wind up going back to TBI to stay on the Kona side, at the Hilton Kohala Resort. I still haven't gotten up to Mauna Loa and I never saw Kilauea, so I'm anxious to go back. However, we do need to get back to the temple in Mililani, so we will most likely be doing a week or two in Kona and a week in Oahu. I would expect that to come in six months or so. We've also discussed a hunting trip to Lanai (although there is ample hunting on TBI, so I dunno whether that will happen).


 * As far as "merciless edits" go, I was initially kind of upset about the Makapuu thing, but when I saw how you had actually done the merge, I was happy with it. My concern was having the List of Hawaii state parks updated and appropriately linked to wikipedia articles. Which, incidentally, I think is kind of a wreck. There are a lot of "parks" on Oahu in specific, many of which are state-maintained, but do not bear names. One such park is the beach at Maili on the leeward coast (appx 30 mins north of Ko'Olina). I've got pictures of it, but I'm not sure what to call it. The locals called it "the park across the street". Additionally, there are some state parks, like Makapuu, which don't really require an entire page for themselves, or for which an entire page would be overkill. I am not sure, however, what to do about it.


 * We seem to have very convergent thoughts on the wikipedia (although mine may be a little more vocal and radical), which is to improve the overall quality of it, a page at a time. So, feel free to continue to edit pages I've created, or ping me if you think something could be changed... I tend to watch most of the pages I create or edit in any extensive way. Avriette 05:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well aloha and e komo mai. On small "unnamed" parks: Hawaii has always been short on signs (and they do get ripped off all the time) so names of parks, etc. probably exist but are not obvious in many cases. Send me the picture, or post it on your user page and I might be able to name the place for you. I'm an environmental consultant and have been all over the place in  my nearly 40 years living/working in Hawaii. The best way (IMHO) to handle the little parks and other interesting places is to tuck them into articles about the area, just as I did for Makapuu.  I recently created Koko Head to cover the many scenic spots between Hawaii Kai, Hawaii and Makapuu. But one such spot within Koko Head Regional Park, called Hanauma Bay, is well-known enough to desrve its own article, so it is split off. - Marshman 17:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries
You are mistaken concerning my edit summaries. Please see my talk page for details. &#10149;the Epopt 18:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Category: 1978 births
Your user page is listed in Category:1978 births. I don't think user pages are supposed to go into those categories. --K. Sperling 01:00, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
 * show me where that is indicated, and i'll change the page. Avriette 20:04, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Categorization, also meta:Help:Category --K. Sperling 00:43, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

VfD
Hey. You tried to add a comment or article to VfD not long ago, but it got mixed up and I couldn't figure out where it was meant to go. I've removed it from the page as it ended up as a comment under a VfD which was added after your comment. As you know where/what its meant to be, you should be able to reinstate it. Hedley 01:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Blocking
Hi Alex,

Thanks for the message about User:207.239.12.200 yesterday. Unfortunately you caught me after I had finished editing for the day. Even more unfortunately, blocking that IP last night probably wouldn't have helped much. Blocking is a relatively blunt tool - it only lasts 24hrs, so it only works against an active vandal. It is not intended as a punishment, but rather to prevent continued vandalism whilst we patch up any existing damage.

That IP edited the Earth article several days ago and there haven't been any edits since. Assuming it is a shared IP at a school, it is unlikely that anyone would have been there to notice the block on a Sunday.

The best we can do it keep an eye on them and apply a block the next time they are actively vandalising articles. Otherwise it will be a different person who is likely to see the warning messages and the block would probably have little effect.

In the longer term, the most effective weapon against vandals, is to show that their edits won't stick since they are easy for us to revert, they won't wind anyone up too much and their efforts are generally futile. -- Solipsist 21:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

War on Terror edits
Which edits in particular do you have a problem with? Sorry about the misleading edit summary, it was a bit more than a cleanup. --Lee Hunter 02:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * added the word "supposed" in "Some say the 2003 invasion of Iraq is part of the "war on terror," most notably but not exclusively because of Hussein's supposed WMD activities,". Even the US administration admits there were no WMDs so some kind of qualification seemed necessary.
 * "supposed" casts disbelief on the subject.
 * Good heavens. Surely you're not saying that you still believe in the WMD? Even poor old Colin Powell has given up on that one.
 * updated the civilian casualty figures and removed some garbled text
 * updated by a factor of ten or more, not quoting a source, and using a source which is widely discredited.
 * The source was there before my edit (the WP article which leads to the primary sources) I gave the range of figures which are in the article and are commonly cited. The high end figure of 100,000 has been disputed by some and supported by others but it can't be discredited, simply because nobody has done a better study.
 * added the Amnesty International criticism. Seemed to fit pretty well with the section heading (Criticisms of the War on terror)
 * which is entirely incorrect, has been derided in popular press, and should be considered entirely pov.
 * It's a widely reported criticism of the war on terror by the world's foremost human rights organization (a group often quoted by the Bush administration whenever AI is talking about other countries). It's certainly Amnesty International's POV, but reporting that they hold that POV is entirely appropriate.
 * Updated the US casualty figures which were about a year out of date
 * fine.
 * Tightened up the budget bullet without changing the content.
 * fine.
 * Reworded the "failure to provide WMD evidence" bullet without substantially changing the content.
 * you changed the inflection. that's called POV.
 * Every edit changes the inflection to some degree. If you see a problem with the edit, please fix it.
 * Removed the CIA bullet because it seemed wildly tangential.
 * agree with this.


 * edits by Avriette 19:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) . i still completely disagree with your edits and think they belong on the TALK PAGE and not merged into the article without a consensus.


 * I've added a source for the interrogation edit which bothered you so much. There are plenty of other sources if you need them. Regards --Lee Hunter 02:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)