User talk:Diefgross

RE Iraq War
Howdy, Just FYI, On Wikipedia Wikipedia:Verifiability] trumps consensus. If you want to claim that combat operations are continuing please provide something that conforms to [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources that contradicts the president and pentagons statements. Otherwise it is NOR. Thanks.V7-sport (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI the president didn't say the war is over he said US combat operations are over. FYI I didn't say Coalition combat operations are continuing I said Iraqi security forces operations are continuing, if you need proof of this turn on your television and check out the news about the 60 people who died in that church in Baghdad yesterday. And FYI this is not just an American war but an Iraqi one also. It doesn't end just because the Americans say it ends, which they haven't. If we followed that example another editor also said that would mean the Vietnam war ended in 1973 when the US pulled back and not 1975 when their Vietnamese allies were defeated.Diefgross (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * HI! Thanks for your response. I wrote "FYI" not as an indictment so if you took it that way please don't. State Dept. spokesman P.J. Crowley stated "We are ending the war" The Washington post stated that: "President Obama declared the U.S. war in Iraq over Tuesday night" and that "the American combat mission in Iraq has ended," etc. The X amount of people killed in Baghdad were victims of islamist terrorism, which happens all over the world. Anything the Iraqis do on their own soil to combat it is police work, not "war" and if we followed your example world war 2 would be ongoing because there are still Japanese Islands that have Russian troops on them. Thanks again for your response. V7-sport (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again this has not been just a US war but an Iraqi one also. Police work? Hmmm yeah I think the Korean and Vietnam wars were also called by the US police actions. This war since May 1, 2003 up to today has largely consisted of those police actions with the exception of a few set-piece battles. If those are just police actions why are there still military personel dying by the hundreds each month, not to mention the civilians? And if those are just terrorists why is the US military and the Iraqi government still calling them insurgents and rebels if there is no war? Forget it, the majority of editors agrees on this and they will vote you out in any further discussions, I am not needed. I will not be returning to this issue anymore, I'm tyred. Taking a Wiki-break.Diefgross (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, here's the thing, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. so if you want to include something verifiable from a reliable source (pentagon, white house, etc.) that contradicts and supersedes what i posted that is of course your prerogative. V7-sport (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, once again, please do not revert the edits on the Iraq war page unless you can provide some kind of citation that supersedes the state department or the pentagon that declares the war to be continuing. Continuing to call the war ongoing because there were acts of violence in Iraq is original research. Specifically, what you are doing is "WP:SYNTHESIS" ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.") If you can find a source then by all means post it. Thanks. V7-sport (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to inform you that up to this point I had good faith in your attempts to contribute however now after you erased my proposition to go back to the discussion of the breakdown of the dates into phases and XavierGreen's support on this issue I have decided that this would be a good time for a neutral editor or an administrator to make a rulling. You also have not shown any will in finding a compromise solution with me or Xavier or Publicus or the anonymous editor and I am deeply sorry for that. I had hoped we could find some common ground.Diefgross (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not erased anything, I have moved the text of our conversation hers so it could be kept track of. That is verifiable in my log. I don't know what other proposition you are talking about. And no, you haven't assumed good faith throughout this. By all means, take it to whomever. The compromise is that you find a verifiable quote from reliable sources with the weight to supersede that of the State Department, Pentagon and President. Otherwise your assertions are original research. V7-sport (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is an outright lie to write that I have deleted your comments on the Iraq war talk page. V7-sport (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I apologize, I did not intentionally remove your post and will restore it. V7-sport (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Your souce is unverifiable - each time I click on it, it comes up with 'error 404'- so, technically, removing it was not vandilism as I could not access it, which would be grounds to do so, as the information could have been made up - so I sought to remove it and that is what I did. Could you please check the link to the source itself and tell me why I cannot access it? Nsxi13(talk)10:45, 29 June 2011

Iraq war
Obama defense secretary Leon Panneta says the war is over.

http://www.stripes.com/news/panetta-declares-iraq-war-end-of-mission-for-u-s-troops-1.163568

Zenithfel (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion. Based on your editing pattern, it is clear that you are another account being operated by. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

To elaborate on the above, the similarities are:
 * You have been editing mainly in articles on ongoing wars which were either started by Top Gun or his/her alternate accounts or frequently edited by these accounts
 * Your edits in these articles have frequently involved updating casualty figures, which is characteristic of Top Gun accounts
 * This editing has included calculating your own casualty figures which differ from those in the sources provided, which is one of the main problems with Top Gun's editing. For instance, in this edit, most of the various casualty totals aren't supported by the sources, which actually differ quite considerably (six months on, that iCasualties page states that the number of contractor deaths is 468 while the figure you added back in June was 550, and the Reuters article referenced in that edit put the number of contractor deaths in Iraq at at least 933). Similarly, in at least the following two edits: and  you claimed that the Iraq War Logs had added an extra 15,000 deaths to the previous estimate, when the source actually says that analysis of this information "may add 15,000 civilian deaths" - eg, that 15,000 is the potential maximum increase to the estimate, and not the actual increase as you presented it as.
 * I note that in the second of these two edits you restored this claim despite it being removed by another editor. Edit warring to preserve questionable self-calculated casualty totals is also characteristic of Top Gun accounts.
 * The pattern of your editing (including changing many Top Gun-created articles on casualty incidents to replace the lists of incidents with summary tables) is also very similar to Top Gun sockpuppet, who was doing the same thing in the Afghanistan War-related articles Top Gun has frequently edited in the past. I can't help but suspect that you're Top Gun's Iraq War sockpuppet and BigPaw was the Afghanistan War sockpuppet given the strong similarities in editing style and lack of cross-over (the lack of cross over by itself is an indication of something odd going on given that most editors who work on articles covering ongoing wars have edited articles on both wars, often frequently).
 * Finally, the fact that - in common with many Top Gun accounts - this account's editing history began with edits being made mainly to science fiction film and TV related articles, with this topic being almost entirely abandoned once the edits to ongoing wars began. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)