User talk:Ipankonin/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Tim4christ17 talk 08:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

FYI
Since you persist in trying to violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL I have taken the liberty of asking others to inform you of what those policies stand for. Sincerely Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're trying to silence me, and it won't work. Isaac Pankonin 23:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS
Just as a heads up, you are skirting the issue of WP:CANVAS with your request to people to chime in on an RFC. I'll take a look at it, but will have to give fair notice that you asked me to look at it. Some might consider your making request to people who you believe will support your view to be a violationg of policy... which could hurt your chances if others let emotions get involved.Balloonman 06:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Isaac Pankonin 07:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, actively seeking out editors you don't know, and are not currently involved in any article I edit, in an attempt to promote your desire to start an RFC on my person seems another violation of policy. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to start a frivolous RFC. I need to know if other people support the idea before I start.  Every one of those editors have been in previous discussion about your violation of policy.  Isaac Pankonin 22:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, as long as Isaac isn't contacting people he knows suit his POV, there's not much of a problem if he advertises the RFC. Bulldog123 06:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This was right after I proposed a solution in another article, and all three of the users that I contacted agreed with me right away, so it can probably be seen as improper. I regret posting those messages, and I erased the other two right away.  Even though I didn't know about the policy at the time, my conscious was not entirely clear about it.  Isaac Pankonin 07:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed... I wouldn't have said anything if it was just me. His request was neutral in tone and didn't advocate a position or expect certain results.  Thus, in that regard it was OK.  The problem is that 2 of the 3 people he contacted tend to be very pro-US.  This gives me the appearance that he was announcing it to people who share his perspective.  The other criteria to avoid CANVAS is to do so openly---which is why I shared this breach at the RFC.Balloonman 13:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to take action against NormanNescio before, but just simply lost interest. I did try to include properly sourced information that he removed only because he was not interested in the truth. I didn't know how to handle it back then and just simply left it alone (I try to keep away from people whom I believe are dishonest). To be fair and open, I am an American but am committed to the truth even if it hurts the US. All honest people and groups must address problems when they arise after all. I believe all pertinent information should be provided, whether it goes for or against my own POV. From what I have seen, NormanNescio is not interested in this. User Ipankonin just asked me if I wanted to do it, he didn't advocate anything. Check my user page, he cites a specific example where I objected to NormanNescio's comments. Arnabdas 19:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User Boxes
Wow! You have great user boxes. I would actually like all of them "except the cat one :) " if that is ok with you. Also, maybe you could help me put them on my page or tell me how?  Donny  417  01:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest using Template:Userboxtop for better structure. Isaac Pankonin 03:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Iraq Resolution
I'll take a look. Cheers, JCO312 13:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read the section you asked me to look at. The section is attempting to explore whether the invasion of Iraq is a violation of U.S. law, assuming that the invasion violates the U.N. Charter which is a treaty ratified by the U.S.


 * The problem with the section is the discussion of "self-executing" treaties, because whether a treaty is self-executing or non-self-executing is only important to determine whether it creates rights that can be enforced by a U.S. court. In other words, a non-self-executing treaty is still "the supreme law of the land," but it does not confer a legally enforceable right on an individual.  It really is a matter of how courts deal with treaties, and not a question of whether the treaty is "the law."


 * Also of significance for the discussion is Congress' power to supercede treaty obligations by passing a conflicting law. To the extent that "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" conflicts with the U.N. treaty, the authorization, as the latest in time, is controlling (since a treaty and a statute are given equal weight, whichever is later in time wins).


 * Thus, the only way that the invasion of Iraq could really have been a violation of U.S. law as a result of our treaty obligations would have been if the President had engaged in the war without congressional authorization. In that case, the distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties would only be significant if someone tried to sue him to stop the war (this isn't really a possibility because nobody would really have standing).


 * So for the purposes of the section, the counter-argument doesn't really have anything to do with whether the treaty is self-executing or not. The counter-argument here is that Congress authorized the invasion by statute, making it legal under U.S. law (it's not really a counter-argument, it's just the truth).


 * You may be wondering why you've seen discussions about self-executing versus non-self-executing in the material you cited. From what I've read of your sources, most of that discussion centered around Lt. Watada's judicial proceedings.  The sources seem to think that he was trying to assert some sort of individual right which would be enforceable in court, in which case the distinction would be important.  I think the sources have missed the point, but that's for another post entirely...


 * I hope this helps. Please feel free to ask any other questions you might have.  Cheers, JCO312 16:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I added my 2 cents.....Sorry it took me so long. My experince with editor N caused me not to want to even be on Winki. I came back today to look something up and saw the mail you sent. I pretty much just listed the events as I saw them. I wish you good luck...I hope you have more luck than I did. GATXER 23:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles jats and Origin of Jats, name change
Dear Issac

I hope I am not imposing upon your time.

I need some objective assistance.

Initially I has agreed with your name change of the Article from ‘Indo Aryan Origin of Jats’ to ‘Origin of Jats’.

However when I re-read the Main article,Jats, I find that it is only one of the theories about their origin, there being two other such articles. I suspect other articles will also come out about the other theories.

See index of contents:

•	4.1 Theories of origin •	4.2 Indo-Aryan origin •	4.3 Indo-Scythian origin •	4.4 Origin of Jats from Shiva's Locks

Perhaps you could consider changing the name back to  “Indo-Aryan origin of Jats” I have also put a somewhat lengthy post about why this article should not be deleted. Perhaps you could spare some time and read it.

Your help would be appreciated.

I am moderator of a discussion group on Jat History. There is much online reference material in the files section. We welcome new members.

You are welcome to join if you like

url is : Jat History

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/

Ravi Chaudhary 01:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Issac,

Thank you for your comments.

There is no disagreement from me in your views. Mine are pretty much the same as yours.

' Aryan' nomenclature is inappropriate, and has no historical basis.

It has however developed a life of its own, thanks to the force of some 18th/19th century European thinkers and writers. But we have to deal with the nomenclature as we find it.

In the Indian context, it does not the same connotation as its does in the western context.

It simply means ' noble'.

The subject is however, only as to Title of the Article, that it should be the original Title" Indo Aryan Origin of Jats" which is a sub article to the main article Jats. There are also other theories listed in that article. This is only one of them.

Changing the title conveys the impression that this is only extant theory, which would be wrong.

Would you mind changing the Title back to the original verson.

If you do not mind, put your comments on this page only, I will follow them or send me a private  email.

Best regards

Ravi Chaudhary 23:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the argument to delete is that the article is beyond hope. It's pretty bad, but it's not unsalvagable, and I think giving the article a neutral name is a good start.  I respectfully insist that its current name stays.  Isaac Pankonin 02:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I think Origin of Jats is a more appropriate subpage to the Jats article. Indo-Aryan Origin of Jats would be an appropriate subpage to Origin of Jats, but since that article doesn't exist yet, we should concentrate on creating it.  Isaac Pankonin 02:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Issac

This is part of the contents index on that main jats article. ''' 4 Background

* 4.1 Theories of origin * 4.2 Indo-Aryan origin * 4.3 Indo-Scythian origin * 4.4 Origin of Jats from Shiva's Locks ''' You have changed the name of the sub article '4.2 Indo Aryan Origin' to' 'Origin of Jats'

That change of name confuses the issue, it  does not fit into the structure of the contents index of the main article.

Hence the request to change it back!

Ravi Chaudhary 21:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My response is now available
Hi, Ipankonin,

I suggest that reading my response to the Request for Comment might provide a deeper insight into the difficulty at First Vision. All the best, --John Foxe 21:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Court Template
I am not aware of a specific infobox for district or appellate level cases (I assume for Doe you actually want a court of appeals box, since I think the First Circuit wrote the most important opinion). You can, however, modify the infobox used for Supreme Court cases. Instructions for how to do so are located at User:Postdlf/court case infobox. Cheers, JCO312 18:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. I think you made the right choice not going with an infobox, although if you wanted to expand the article to include more detail on the arguments, the district court decision, and the appeals court opinion, an infobox could become useful.  If that is something you'd like to do I'd be happy to help.  I might even be able to get my hands on the briefs submitted by the parties.  Cheers, JCO312 15:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The citation for the First Circuit opinion is 323 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2003). The citation to the two district court opinions are Doe v. Bush, 240 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D. Mass., 2003) and Doe v. Bush, 257 F. Supp. 2d 436 (D. Mass., 2003)(apparently the first opinion was issued in open court, and the second opinion simply expands on the first).  Hope that helps.  Cheers, JCO312 13:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Sheltered" and "gave refuge"
The problem is that we don't have any idea whether the Iraqi government was actively supporting people like Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal and there is a lot of reason to believe that they did not, e.g., the Nidal arrest/alleged suicide in 2002. The White House has been claiming it, and they've been declassifying info to support other contentious claims. What reason could there be for not declassifying supporting information obtained in Iraq before the invasion? If we had a newspaper or a journal article corroborating the White House, I would support including the allegations, but at least from my skimming the sources in the two Abu's articles, I don't think there is one.

Under the weak definition of sheltered, it would be just as true to say that the U.S. sheltered the 9/11 terrorists, which is so pointless as to be nonsensical. &larr;Ben B4 16:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War
Yes, I think, on the whole, the casualties section is working out well. Wikipedia is amazing in getting people of all persuasions to work together to put out all the significant info and POVs in a neutral WP:NPOV way. --Timeshifter 10:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Paul v. Clinton revert
No, we don't want a cite after every word. However, the reason the case against Hillary was dismissed by the judge seems to be in dispute. Some say "lack of evidence", some say "law protects her". Therefore, I wanted to have three cites on the sentence - one for the case being dismissed (simple fact), and one for each of these reasons. Wasted Time R 10:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You broke the three-revert rule
These four reverts made in less than a 24-hour period:

That is a violation of the WP:3RR rule. I suggest you read it. If you break it again, I will report you and you will be blocked. 1of3 06:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This edit (the third one you listed) was after Rise Above the Vile and I reached an agreement on the talk page. I was actively involved in dispute resolution, and this was a compromise edit.  So no, I didn't break 3RR.  I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Image source problem with Image:Iraq header 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Iraq header 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.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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 08:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 08:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Iraq header 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Iraq header 2.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.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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 08:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 08:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)