Talk:Second Battle of Fallujah/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposal for new Controversy section

seems like another good source https://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-11-08/us-troops-ban-men-from-entering-leaving-fallujah/581886

only problem with finding sources is these events happened 18 years ago and the AP link was dead, the fox !!! link redirects to when they did the same thing again for ISIS in 2015

But I am old enough that I paid attention to these events first hand so it actually is really disappointing to see this whitewashing going on after seeing TV footage of holes burned in little kids. Now people want to act like it didn't happen. GalantFan (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

To whoever needs to hear this, this is APPROVED WIKI CONTENT in the appropriate context.

Such as a battle featuring the massive deployment of WP!

The GORE was the whole point of the Fallujah controversy!!! It's NOT A Point Of View!!!

File:Ayman2.jpg

GalantFan (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I've turned that file-link of gratuitous gore to a regular link. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

GalantFan, I'm posting my reply to your latest comment here as the thread has been closed and my reply was related to your claim that I "have repeatedly been invited to use the talk page to explain which part of my edit you think shouldn't be included". It's very misleading to claim this. During the last dispute for which you were eventually blocked from editing for one week, you were reverted three times by other editors and told to seek consensus here. I was not going to start a talk page discussion whilst the dispute was ongoing. You did eventually start a talk page discussion but you then added this to the talk page which is very unpleasant. You were blocked shortly after, so I can't have a talk page discussion with you whilst you were blocked and I even made a couple edits on this article in accordance with your proposed changes. I was honestly waiting for you to start a talk page discussion once your block expired but when you returned you simply started restoring some of your old edits. If you want to start a new talk page section to discuss your proposed edits and find consensus, I will happily have a civil discussion with you. GreenCows (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

You still have not given reasons for removing my edits outside of you haven't granted me consensus. There seems to be no reason why each of my edits should not be restored. I have asked you before instead of doing a total revert, please just make constructive alterations on each issue individually.

You appear to be gate keeping on the article which already pushes a POV, to continue pushing the same POV. Have you even watched the documentary yet instead of quoting criticism opinions from people who weren't there and didn't even witness anything themselves?

And besides that documentary, there are other sources even from a year earlier of WP blasting into the sky out of artillery and spraying indiscriminately out of helicopters. Rather than just editing what might be wrong or misstated, you just reverted everything I wrote.

People are complaining about the length of quotes when the whole reason I used quotes is to avoid inaccurate paraphrases and misrepresentations.

Last time I attempted to restore my edits, I did it one little piece at a time so it would be clear what the purpose of each edit was, as well as to give anyone the opportunity to review each piece on at a time.GalantFan (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no point continuing to try to explain to you why I and other editors previously reverted you on this article as you're still missing the point and not understanding that other behavioural issues were the main problem. You've seem to have completely ignored my points about why and didn't contribute to the talk page discussion before. There was an ongoing dispute between you and I and then you were banned for a week. Regardless of these previous disputes, I think it's best to just move on. I'll start a new section myself as a clean slate to move forward the discussion about your proposed changes.GreenCows (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

You claim that my behavior was the problem. I say your reverting, and POV pushing while accusing other people of POV pushing, and gatekeeping and acting like you own the articles despite a clear lack of knowledge on the subjects was the problem. Including deleting things that are true and had provided detailed sources for. That stuff came first which is what I found provocative.GalantFan (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Even just the claims like you are willing to help me with the article, makes me just think, who are you and what expertise do you have when you keep deleting truth and pushing pro-America POV.GalantFan (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

You're still missing the point and ignoring my points. Of course your behaviour was the problem. Hence why YOU were banned for 1 week and why many editors have criticized your behaviour yet you continue with that type of behaviour. How is someone supposed to discuss your proposed changes when you continue to be uncivil and so combative. Accusing me of gatekeeping or lacking expertise and knowledge is false or just unhelpful. Please stop and let's continue discussing in the other section and move on from this nonsense.GreenCows (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

GreenCows/Stumink has now been banned from the site for using more than a dozen known sock puppet accounts, and a decade of proAmerica POV pushing and whitewashing, while he hypocritically accuses others of POV pushing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stumink/Archive

I am 99% sure he whitewashed this article years ago under a different sockpuppet account. His purpose here is not to write NPOV but to defend his whitewashing and nationalism. GalantFan (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)