User talk:Deleted User 200017778

Also, I believe it is against copyright to have copyrighted images (such as you have) on your user page. Happy to help though and if you have any questions feel free to ask me. -- Will Mak  050389  03:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Al-qaim-1-.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Al-qaim-1-.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 08:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

admin aid needed
user- 88.155.198.100 has removed several information sections apparently out of personal reasons he has ignored requests for talkpage usage and broken the 3RR rule. the majority of his removals have been under the casualty section of the Battle of Bint Jbeil. where he removes the more recent casualty counts provided by msn cnn ny times (as recent as aug-2) and replaced them with much older information from websites, and insists that the newer cnn sources are "BULLSHIT" with out giving details. as a inexperienced editor I need some sort of admin help with this. his frequent removals have brought aditions to the page down to a halt.--68.211.220.109 00:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#General

Flayer blocked
Due to your excellently reported 3RR violation report, I blocked Flayer for three days, effective from 04:47 UTC 6 August 2006. If he causes any more trouble after the block expires, let me know and I will issue lengthier blocks. Also, because you filed such a nice report, I officially declare that you are no longer a nOOb. Welcome to Wikipedia. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 04:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

*Salutes*  Thank You Sir.--Freepsbane 12:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tactical Victory
What is your rationale for removing the "Israeli Tactical victory"? A tactical victory is defined as a "a success in battle without substantive or long-lasting gain." They were not beat back by Hezbollah and did gain territory on the battlefield, this isnt my opinion, its a fact. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 23:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What is your explanation? ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 14:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Don’t be so 2demesional defense in depth tactics Hezbollah used for the battle all but preclude the use of territory as a barometer for victory. The fact is tactically neither force defeated the other and the attack itself seemed to stall. Hence the Stalemate aspect.Freepsbane 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC) When dealing with Asymmetric warfare it is unwise to use the same judgment scale as with set-piece battles, something known in military science. In that senario for determining the tactical victor you use a combination of body counts and the effectiveness(Intactness) of both fighting forces by the end of the engagement.Freepsbane 14:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

At any rate I don't appreciate you coming here to snap at me. I merely reverted an edit that seemed to be misinformed. Let’s continue this discussion in the article's talk page rather than mine.Freepsbane 15:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
From what I've heard he converted the tachi from a cavalry sword into the modern katana by shortening it and moving the curvature from near the hilt (kushizori) to nearer the center of the blade (torizori). If you compare the pictures of a tachi and a katana, you'll find the curvature on a tachi is more pronounced. Dessydes 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You are completely correct in the above statement; besides converting the tachi design into the katana Masamune also perfected the tempering process.Freepsbane 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think I should edit the article or leave it to someone else? I hate starting edit wars. Once again, thanks. Dessydes 08:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi sorry about the delay in answering your query. As you pointed out the article is incomplete in its historical section and an edit that would remedy this would defiantly be appreciated. That said some people are sensitive to changes in articles, and while I doubt that any upgrade you perform on the article would lead to an editwar it may be best to post the proposed updates in the Discussion section of the article as a precaution. Thanks  Freepsbane 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Will keep that in mind. I was going to write abut you are still a douchbag Freepsbanesection in my Wikidiaries in the meantime where I knew it wouldn't be tampered with, but someone deleted the documentary I recorded on my PVR. Btw I've not signed in, as my monobook tends to halt the site in IE, hope you don't mind. Again, thanks. Dessydes

Bint Jbeil
Please use the page's Talk page to expalin your edits. Isarig 23:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

forgive me for my tone, but you have used the talk page for nothing other than to than to asault other editor's character. unless if you will act difrently in that regard the use of talk is imposible. Freepsbane 23:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It is clear you have not bothered to read the Talk page (or to contribute to it). I have presented arguments in favor of my revision, which were supported by other editors. You are encourged to use Talk rather than blindly reverting. Isarig 23:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

blind reversions? I am not the editor that has just broken the 3rr rule.     Freepsbane 23:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't understand WP:3RR, newbie. is not a revert, but the addition of new information, complete with new source never before present on that page. there is not a "previous version" which has that edit. And yes, you are engaged in blind reverts - having revrted my edits twice without bothering to explain yourself on Talk.Isarig

You reverted the pre existing version of that page, the very same version you have reverted in the past. True there was aproximatly a day of space betwen the first revert you executed today, but is was still the revertion of data that has been contested and disputed nontheless. Freepsbane 00:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed an exiting version, but did not revert. Liek I said, you don't understand the concept of revert. That's ok, you're a newbie. There's a lot for you to learn. Isarig 01:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Youe edit to User:TheRanger
Regarding the following diff, I see no evidence that User:TheRanger is a sockpuppet of anyone. The notice was added and readded by new users and IPs, any reason you restored that template ? Equendil Talk 20:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cerebral

 * Could you give your opinion at ? Thanks. yandman  07:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Material from 'First Battle of Fallujah'
I did not vadalize this article, I deleted bad information and citations that did not back up the claims they were cited to support. I have removed the material again and put my reasoning on the talk page. - Atfyfe 19:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Isarig

VROR
Thanks for your message. I am looking at the situation now. Please give me a day or so to do it properly. In the meantime, don't interact with this user. Don't edit war with him, don't even edit anything he has edited. You both need time to calm down after that. Take care, --Guinnog 21:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC) yes will do.Freepsbane 03:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You and User:Clintonesque
(copied from Clintonesque's user talk) Hi. Freepsbane asked me to look at your interactions with him and I see they have been less than cordial. The solution I propose is that both of you: Do you accept? I'm copying this to him as well. All the best, --Guinnog 00:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Refrain from editing each others' talk pages for a month. Instead you may commmunicate through me, or any other admin who wants to get involved. This should be easy if you also both agree to
 * 2) Discuss any proposed changes in articles you have both edited in talk first and obtain consensus for those changes
 * 3) Refrain from edit-warring over the Fallujah article. I'd like you both to observe WP:1RR on that article please

Agreed, I would be more than willing to follow your instructions. My apologies for the slow response, a real life strep infection kept me out for a bit. Once again thank you for your time. Freepsbane 00:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, sorry you weren't well. Thanks for your good will. Let's move this forward. --Guinnog 00:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Aye, thanks.Freepsbane 00:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fallujah
Got no problem with the 11 deaths you found that I missed, but how does that change from 42 to 83? Shouldn't it be 53? Also, I'm uncomfortable with the restored "ref=guardian" tags, somebody had added them throughout the original article to just cover their ass without citing any specific articles. I'm also unclear on why the wikilink to Jasim Mohammed Saleh was removed, when really it should have been kept, and an additional link to Muhammed Latif added. Finally, the US withdrew from the city, marking the end of the battle, on May 1st - not April 9...so I'm unclear on that change as well. I'm going to bump the numbers to 53 KIA, and add the Latif reference - but revert the rest for now, unless there's a reason for it. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello thanks for the compliments on 1st and 2nd battle of Ramadi and battle of Husaybah, I did as best as I could but there are no POV from the insurgents because I don't think that they have embeded reporters with them. If you could help me edit those articles then great. And when they are good enough I think they should be put in the campaignbox because 2nd battle of Ramadi is on the scale of Together forward and Husaybah and 1st Ramadi are on the level of battle of Debecka pass and also you asked for information to verify the number of killed American Marines I confirmed that based on the units that were envoled and checked those units casualties in that time period also the 20 Marines killed in the april 2004 battles in Ramadi and Husaybah are listed killed also in the 1st battle of Fallujah. I think that they should be removed,the number revised from 53 to 33, after all there is in that article the list of units participating in that battle and those 20 killed are not members of those units.

Re: Bugei
I've never personally used anything from Bugei, so I'm sorry to say I can't give any kind of personal testimony. From poking around various swordsmanship forums, I've never seen anyone complaining, though. I doubt you'll go too far wrong doing business with them. Kensai Max 23:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kat bullet 1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kat bullet 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 18:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Japan taskforces
In order to encourage more participation, and to help people find a specific area in which they are more able to help out, we have organized taskforces at WikiProject Japan. Please visit the Participants page and update the list with the taskforces in which you wish to participate. Links to all the taskforces are found at the top of the list of participants.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for helping out! ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC) http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1669249,00.html

Self's Behavior
yes Downtrip your accusations of my bias and petulance are valid, I am not by any means a perfect editor or even a good editor. I can become fixated on segments of text and cease constructive actions. being human my actions of course determined to a extent by self interest and I may execute poor judgment as result. However I do try to follow the Social rules of this virtual environment, conventions are valued by humans and any social animal and we use them to maintain some semblance of order.Freepsbane (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering the fact that you are going about making false accusations about me your talk of social rules and conventions is laughable. I do not appreciate you writing that I am some confirmed sockpuppet when indeed I am not. In fact only one admin has yet to comment so far and he/she said as follows:"Likely, based on IP range, that Downtrip = Wikzilla, but it's impossible to confirm based on IP evidence alone because of the age of the Wikzilla account. Dmcdevit·t 05:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)"

Notice it say nothing about confirmed. Not only are you jumping the gun, you are anticipating something that is not going to happen. I think an apology is justified but I will settle for you to stop harassing me.Downtrip (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If you were to familiarize yourself with the checkuser terminology you would see that there are multiple levels showing the correlation of users : Unrelated, Unlikely, Inconclusive, Possible , Likely & Confirmed. You are at the Likely range meaning that you most likely a sock of Wikizilla.I was not the one to make the accusations if you must have somebody then hate the Checkuser for outing you.Freepsbane (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Note to myself

 * NOTE: As I am a sock of you, or vice versa - Wik/Down isn't smart enough to figure it out - this is redundant, but on the off-chance that Down is wrong - hehehehe- I'll post this anyway. Btw, it's strange that Downtrip told you to crawl back under your rock - doesn't he know that I'm alreadty there from when Wikzilla told me to do that? Odd that they should use the same phrases so often, isn't it?

Freeps, even if we succeed in banning/blocking Downtrip, he'll just keep coming back. For the most part he seems inclined to make constructive mainspace edits right now, so it's probably best to back off for now. Enough admins know of the Check-user report now that they will be watching him. Just bide your time, he will mess up enough to get banned again anyway - he can't help it, it's just in his nature! - BillCJ (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Call for a formal vote
Please see for your input on a survey regarding the use of exercise reports in the article. Bzuk (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

Popular sovereignty
Coyedit from my talk page: "Although I see nothing wrong with holding a survey, I do have misgivings about holding a binding straw vote of the CFD type: what do we do to get a broad sample and avoid a Lecompton Constitution type affair ala bleeding Kansas.  What is the minimum turnout, what type of majority will rule a Simple majority or a Supermajority?  will everyone who has taken part in the edit history be solicited or just a handful? And will outsiders and administrators be polled to gain a impartial consensus? Why do we only have the options of Keep and Remove when many want alternatives such as keep and clean, move to a separate relevant article, or  other non listed options.  Sorry for taking your time with such questions. Freepsbane (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"


 * Thanks for writing. Let me briefly explain my reasoning. This article along with the F-22 Raptor and Eurofighter Typhoon article have been swept up in a controversy initiated by an editor whose interest seems to be soley devoted to proving the merits of the Typhoon over other aircraft types. This editor engaged in Tendentious editing. From the Wikipedia guideline on tendentious editing, here are some of the characteristics of "issue" editors:
 * Repeatedly reverts the “vandalism” of others
 * Makes a constant repeating of the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.
 * Campaigns to "Right Great Wrongs!"


 * What seems to have occurred is that a number of other editors, myself included, have been drawn into the swirl of elaborate discussions and rationalizations that have absorbed a tremendous amount of time and effort from all concerned.


 * More importantly, the tenor of the discussions have degenerated into an ill-considered and intemperate series of rebuttals and personal attacks, culminating in what I believe are ill-founded claims of sock puppetry. Remember, it's what I believe based on the edit history of the infamous Wikzilla. You probably have not been on the receiving end of Wkizilla's venom – I have and it is anything but subtle and reasoned. He savaged my home page countless times and tried to adversely affect an ARBCOM in which I was a party. Nothing in the (excuse my forthrightness here) stupidity that has ensued in the contretemps between various editors remotely approaches the Wikzilla savagery. Now saying all that, this is why I instituted the official call for a consensus-driven decision on the 4th generation jet aircraft: it is a formal process that has strict procedures to follow and any supervisor of the voting will not abide any disruptive attempts to sabatoge the discourse.


 * I put this survey out because I wanted all parties to have to comport themselves in a mannerly and civil fashion and to "force feed" the Wikipedia standards back into the talk page. This is what I will post on the talk page:
 * This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines; Do not respond to personal attacks nor become involved in them, however please note the following:


 * Now as to your concerns about time limits, "popularity contesting" and "vote stacking" which is understandable: I will refrain from other than casting one vote, participating extensively in the survey and instead call in an experienced admin and moderator to oversee the process and administer the vote. The standard for a survey is one week (or a reasonable period of time that permits all interested parties to participate). As to any other concerns, all editors' submissions will be carefully monitored for inappropriate actions, and that will be a priority for every interested editor not only the moderator. A conclusive decision is required due to the contentious nature of the previous discussions. Typically voters may also "flavour" their votes by having strongly agrre, or oppose votes or by providing altered versions, or alternative solutions which will also be considered. Note that consensus is not entirely based on the precepts of a majority vote, it is instead the decision that the majority can accept. That means that in a very close or "undecided" vote, there will not be a "clear-cut" consensus and the moderator may call for an extended period or make a decision that the majority will accept, even those casting negative votes or votes in opposition. FWIW, please contact me for further discussion; I do appreciate your taking the time to talk to me. Remember, keep the "cool." [:¬∆) Bzuk (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

Three-revert rule
Be careful not to violate the three-revert rule with your edits at Fourth generation jet fighter. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

4th generation
Idk, I just explained my reasons for keeping DERA data on the talk page. It is really interesting document that was created by Britons in an effort to get more funding for Typhoon program. I do my best, but it would be sad if such an interesting information would be removed from article. As for Downtrip sock-puppetry, Banofreep definite sock of Down. Thank you for filling check request.  TestPilot  08:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment about deletion of Candied fruit
It was done after a well discussed merge proposal, please follow to the talk page Talk:Candied_fruit. - Shoteh (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User page
Hi. I have semi-protected your user page for a week. Let me know if you want it extended or shortened. --John (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help I think two weeks should be fine. It seems I seriously offended Wikizilla… I don’t know if I should be flatered by all the attention he is giving me or not. Freepsbane (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks it is then. Let me know if you need any more help. --John (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Freepsbane (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Philbaaker‎
Can you do me a favor and let me investigate this one, I'm not as sure as you are that he's a sock.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Checkuser results are in - Confirmed sock, they blocked him already. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpFreepsbane (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Freepsbane has been a busy little TROLL
I see you have been busy harassing others while I was away. Don't plan on doing any editing on anything that is not protected TROLL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.13.17 (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So long as you try to get your way through illegitimate means Wikzilla wikippedians will oppose you. Most people don’t take kindly to somebody tiring to force their way upon them and, that is why I will continue to oppose you I would rather see you vandalize my talk page than actual article pages.Freepsbane (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MSC logo-1-.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:MSC logo-1-.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:BillCJ
Could you please somehow look at User:BillCJ behavior? There was an issue with one source link in ACAC ARJ21 article. The link was actually broken. After I fixed link and issue was over, that user, BillCJ, came to to the article and placed "disputed" tag, obviously trying to resurrect an issue(or start new one, idk). I was trying to explain that to him, but he was ignorant. I decided to take an extra step, and provided additional source, but the next step that user, BillCJ, did - was placing nasty warning on my talk page. Something about 3RR in ACAC ARJ21. And I did not used even 2 reverts, not talking about 3 of them!!! I did tried to contact this user, but he decided not to comment on his 3RR obligations. I do have strong feeling that it is sort of personal attack, for whatever reason. And could that warring be somehow removed from my talk page??? The whole situation is sad and ugly.
 * PS. I left this very explanation for User:Rlandmann, an admin that was contacted by BillCJ. But then I realized that they must been a buddies, I mean BillCJ & Rlandmann so I want to ask you or any other independent admin to take a look into this. Thank you.  TestPilot talk to me!  07:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Issue was sorted out by User:Rlandmann and no longer current. Thank you.  TestPilot talk to me!  12:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Freepbane (not) is a douche bag
Yup, you heard it here first. Freepsbane is a dick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.190.120 (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My my, It seems that some one's not getting enough fiber. I hope you're enjoying your time out WZ, I know I am.Freepsbane (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Tskhinvali
Listen let's find a compromising solution as for the casualties in the infobox, calmly, rationaly and coolheaded my friend. Your source |here doesn't say anywhere 25 killed or missing, it only mentions the 13 killed in the initial shelling of the peackeepers barracks. Now, the reference I put |here is an official statement by the Russian Ministry of defence which says 64 killed in the war, given that the only ground fighting that happened during the war was in Tskhinvali and only 2-3 pilots were killed in air raids over the rest of Georgia reason concludes that up to 60, maybe less, but around that number were killed during the battle. Also why are you removing the reference |here which confirms the claim of 40+ bodies of Georgian soldiers found in the ruins of the city? And |this reference confirms a prisoner swap in which 15 Georgian soldiers were excanged for the Russian pilots and a few others, those could have only been captured in South Ossetia (Tskhinvali). I hope you will respond, thanks, bye.(Guyver85) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for speaking to me about this, I’ll be glad to talk it out.My main issue with the sources is that they have been listed as the official Russian claims, while they are not official, and don’t cite official statements. Additionally I didn’t see any part of the article mentioning that the Russians said that sixty of their soldiers died inside TskhinvaliFreepsbane (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I realy don't understand what you are trying to say. If you mean an official statement in writting about the casualties I don't think there is one. But the number of casualties has been cited by an official statement. A Russian general, the deputy general of the Russian chiefs of staff, said in a news conference to reporters that they lost 64 soldiers and some 300 or so, I cann't remember the exact number, were wounded. So now news agencies are just reporting what that top Russian general said. I don't think you can get any more official than that. The reference says привел уточненные данные замначальника Генштаба ВС России (which means: the specifics given were cited by the deputy chief of Joint Staff VS of Russia). As for the number killed in the battle itself, well like I said the only ground fighting reported was in Tskhinvali and nowhere else, and only a few pilots were killed in the air war so it is logical that all of the rest died in Tskhinvali. That's the only place they fought ground battles, nowhere else.Guyver85 (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Anders Aslund
Please provide evidence that ETC magazine is a reputable source. I've asked this before on the article's talk page. Thks Troopedagain (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

ETC is a published Swedish journal run by academic contributors. That itself meets Reliable sources criteria Freepsbane (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB

 * I only use the Aslund Foreign Affairs article in a descriptive way, which is perfectly fine I believe under WP policy. Can you provide a reference that says that Aslund "was an architect in the controversial "shock therapy" measures"? The ETC magazine article doesn't even mention architect. ETC should also be used with caution, per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden. So it should definitely not be featured in the article's lead. Can you also use Talk:Anders Åslund instead, as this will keep the discussion centralised. Thks. Troopedagain (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:MSC_logo-1-.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MSC_logo-1-.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 14:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:MSC logo-1-.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:MSC logo-1-.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. 07:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:
If you want to practice what you teach, talk on the open thread on the talk page. Otherwise, stop restoring a tag given for no reason by a biased editor, and stop accusing me of being unwilling to talk; I'm not going to listen to that crap when you yourself won't follow it. Thanks.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  22:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You aren't just removing those tags, warranted as they were. You are also removing my talk page messages, which were completely civil. You're also coming off a bit belligerent here and you've broken the 3RR rule in your edit war. I don't think you'd talk to us if we tried, which we have. I'm sorry-Freepsbane (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't violate the 3RR.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  22:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And how now? Even if you say the time clock lies, you still aren't adressing the core greivances others have cited. You're just lawyering with us.-Freepsbane (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not lawyering; you are harassing me with unwarranted and inaccurate blocks, and I want it to stop.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  23:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not harassed you, I am asking you to change a unwanted behavior and not be combative towards other editors, the other users are asking only that from you as well. From what I see you don't have any willingness to talk, admit to wrongdoing, or improve behavior. You've simply been combative here even while I've tried to be tactful. You haven't listened to anything I've been saying, you've only lashed at anything I say, this isn't acceptable.- Freepsbane (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one tagging regulars and re-adding it when there is no obligation to even keep them up in the first place.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  00:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not tag you, it's another who did that, even though it was the legitimate warring about 3RR they were supposed to give you. You also removed my non-tag message, and you haven't been conciliatory at all here so tags still don't account for your behavior.-Freepsbane (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=596861754 your edit] to Witherspoon Institute may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * of the study has received criticism   cite web

Talkback
♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀  20:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

2003 invasion of Iraq
Hi.

I noticed you reverted my edit and I checked the talk page and finally found something about the results section (don't know why I missed it earlier). Is there any place where it was decided to keep the "pyrrhic victory"? I understand that the end result of the war was not even close to the objective, and the cost was enormous, but am I missing something? There's an article for the invasion (20 March 2003 – 1 May 2003) and an article for the entire war (20 March 2003 – 15 December 2011), right? The Iraq War was far from a clear victory, but the invasion too? The period between 20 March and 15 December? BlastPT (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, hello! In all fairness, the invasion article itself did not receive a proper discussion in itself. Rather than that, it instead got pulled into an edit war alongside the main article where the current version is the product of what most named editors simply reverted to. Unlike the main page, there was no lengthy discussion, and some of the edits in the current version's favor may have had as much to do with the main proponent of the opposing version doing so through sock puppetry as they did with it's actual merits. If you want to carry out a proper discussion and involve as many editors as possible in it then, I welcome that. I would argue that since perceived low cost of action and the removal of an alleged al-Queda safe heaven were key parts of the strategic calculus behind the invasion and neither of them materialized, then that's important to the outcome. That said, if you and other editors think otherwise and we can talk about that, then I'd be willing to abide by your collective decision. Freepsbane (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

For me at least it comes down to what an invasion is supposed to achieve, and I think most people will agree with that. Is the goal of the invasion different from the goal of the war? Is the only goal of the invasion the control of the land (or in this specific case, the overthrow of the government)? Or does it need to share the same goal as the rest of the war? Is the invasion considered one operation out of many during the war? The Normandy landings for example, would they still be considered a decisive allied victory if the germans had pushed back after a month? If you think there's enough to discuss, then I'd be willing to participate. BlastPT (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Lisa Littman for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lisa Littman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Lisa Littman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safrolic (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

September 2021
Don't template anyone follow policy please Freepsbane (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You are not supposed to tag users, doing so will get you in admin trouble. Please do not. Continue or I will report.Freepsbane (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not policy, it's an essay. It's considered more polite to use personalized warnings instead of templates, especially for editors who are highly experienced, but it's not required by policy. —valereee (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's one stupid essay. It categorically says never to template anyone; it does not make an exception for experienced users. Perhaps you're thinking of WP:DTR. In this particular instance, using a templated message to warn this user of edit-warring was precisely what I - and I believe most people - would have done.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23, same. I wasn't the one who linked to it, I was just responding to the argument that it was policy. —valereee (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Crossroads -talk- 06:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jesse Singal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)