User talk:Anthonymendoza/Archive 1

your comments wanted
Please go here Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination) right away and add your input. Merecat 15:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan
Would you consider rewriting your addition to Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan? On a technical note, use of inline references are a bad idea. If the link goes 404 failing to give the article's title, or date of publication, makes it impossible to search fro a mirror site.

On an editorial note, I checked your reference, and I don't think your summary of it is quite accurate. So, who is the author of the anti-war.com article? What are their credentials. What is their source? -- Geo Swan 22:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, i'll rewrite it using a better source. that khan's name didn't appear in the background briefing is well established.Anthonymendoza 00:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

RfC brought against Commodore Sloat
Hi, I'm contacting you to ask that you take a look at the conduct RfC brought against me by. I'm contacting you because the RfC involves some pages that you have edited on in the past. Although you and I have not really agreed on anything, I have found your edits and comments fair and level-headed, so I value whatever contribution you may make to the RfC page, if you are so inclined. Thanks.--csloat 07:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at my rewrite of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda
Taking the advice of CSTAR, I am putting the new rewrite on the Talk page first and asking you to put in any comments using the footnote facility to note each one of the comments you have some issue with. Also, if there is some comment you think needs a citation, make a note of that as well. I truly do want this article to be accurate and face reality. csloat's version of the debate is not facing reality. RonCram 19:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ron, is there any reason you need to defame me every time you post about this topic to another user's page? If you have problems with the arguments I am making, it would help to respond to them on the talk page in question rather than asserting that I am "not facing reality" on other people's talk pages.  Thanks.--csloat 11:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sloat, I'm only pointing out the fact you will not provide links for the criticisms you have of my rewrite. My rewrite accurately reflects the facts and the controversy.  I provided links.  If there is other information editors need to consider, all you have to do is provide the links.  That is the only way editors can evaluate the validity of your criticisms. Until you deal with the facts, you are not facing reality.RonCram 01:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ron, please see my response to this claim on the proper talk page. I'll ask you again to please stop insulting me -- either deal with the arguments, or stay out of it.  There is no reason to turn this into an ongoing personality clash.--csloat 07:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for a response to my claim. I'm asking for links.  Excuses are not adequate. By the way, your response only proves my point.  You can read my response to your response on the proper page.  The links for the DIA you claimed were in the timeline did not prove that point you were claiming.  So either provide the links to support your claims or stop the charade. RonCram 04:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Anthony, please set up email
I've recently learned that editors can connect by email. If you set up your email account, then we can talk without having Sloat interject himself into our conversations. By the way, I'm glad to see you are researching the documents and adding to the timeline. Keep up the good work. RonCram 04:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I replied on my Talk page. RonCram 11:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

vast right wing conspiracy
Hi Anthony - I was not trying to imply a conspiracy; I was trying to explain my own paranoia. I will try to keep it in check and will try not to make accusations. However, I do think your edits have been one-sided, as I explained; that in itself is not too objectionable, of course; most of my edits are from the other side. But I do think that certain claims are well known to be disinformation coming from disreputable characters - and I don't mean you or Ron; I mean Curveball, Qurairy, etc.--csloat 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

take care
I've learned from you too, Anthony, and I've also enjoyed our debates, even though I got testy about it at times. I can be a hothead but I don't carry a grudge. Good luck to you ... maybe some day I'll wean myself off of my wikipedia addiction too :)--csloat 20:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Wanted2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Wanted2.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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Saddam execution
Go under talk page on saddam hussein, i left a message, the video should not be there.

Image:Ladenzarqawitribute.jpg
Regarding Image:Ladenzarqawitribute.jpg - how can the image be a still from an audio release? Is it just a card that a TV network put on screen while playing the audio? Tempshill 23:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Copy/Paste move
I noticed you did a copy/paste move of CIA leak scandal (2003) to Plame affair. What I'm about to say has nothing to do with whether or not the article should be moved, but rather how you performed the move. A copy/paste move is never an acceptable way to move an article as it removes the history of the edits associated with that article. Please see WP:MOVE for the proper way to move an article. Thanks! --Bobblehead 03:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And just as an FYI. I've reverted your copy/paste move for now so that you can make the proper move request. Thanks! --Bobblehead 03:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are several options you could consider. The most direct would be posting a move request on WP:RM in the Uncontroversial moves section. Make sure you mention that there has already been a discussion on the talk page (Provide a link to the section so the admin doesn't have to search for it) and that you would like an administrator to review the discussion. If the admin's or another editor move it out of Uncontroversial moves, you'll probably have to restart the discussion using the process described on WP:RM.--Bobblehead 23:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Plame affair
Thanks for letting me know about the vote on article naming. -Mardus 10:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)