User talk:Ønography

Welcome!

 * }

August 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 2011 Norway attacks. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. ''I have no opinion on the text you are placing (about Muslims being spat on) but it is clear that you are edit warring: you have placed the text at least six times, and at least three different editors have opposed it. You would be advised to desist and start a discussion on the talk page about this.'' RichardOSmith (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * The same text has not been placed there six times. The text is already up for discussion on the relevant discussion page. Wikipedia is "work in progress". Please avoid spreading the discussion onto other pages.--Ønography (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not reinsert this section - it is poorly written, and badly sourced. I have no doubt that it is correct, but we need to comply with Wikipedia policy, and with English-language grammar. I suggest that you can best help by finding further sources for this, and providing links to them on the article talk page, where we can arrive at better wording. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Badly sourced? Please check out the definition of fantasy.--Ønography (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 Norway attacks
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RichardOSmith (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Apache
Hi there,

I have no problems with the Henderson book, per se. The prose in it is a bit flowery and there are no footnotes, but Henderson did have direct access to Gunny Hathcock so that makes up for some of the shortcomings and most of what he has written is corroborated by other sources. I feel his writing (in both Marine Sniper:93 Confirmed Kills and Silent Warrior) comes off a bit more like a novel than an unbiased military account, but I would not go so far as to say he has published anything that is not true. My objection to that section were the "Cafe Press" type entries, as these are little more than self-published blogs with no editorial oversight. As for an article on "Apache", she's definitely an intriguing character. An article could be written, but I do not believe there is any source revealing her name, date of birth, or any other personal data of that nature. From what I have seen we can say she lived, she was Vietnamese, she lead a platoon, she was a sniper, she tortured Marines, and Gunny Hathcock killed her. I am not even sure without rereading the source material if the date of her death was given. She's mentioned in both of Sasser's books which mention Hathcock, Chandler's book, and both of Henderson's books. There might be a few magazine/newspaper pieces about Hathcock that mention her. If you feel you have enough to get something started, go for it; I'll try to help if you need it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)