User talk:ObsidianOrder/Archive1

Iraqi insurgency

I would favour Iraqi gangs of Islamofascist murderers but I doubt I would get much support for that. Adam 02:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Mainland China" and "China"

Thanks for joining the discussion of the titles of China-related articles. "Mainland China" and "China" are not the same thing, and their meanings do not entirely overlap. In my opinion accuracy is more important than whether it's cumbersome or not. — Instantnood 19:13, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to comment here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Instantnood SchmuckyTheCat 00:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Hello there. I am recently being listed on RfC. Feel free to comment as you wish to. I regard it as a way out and to have the matter settled. Thanks. — Instantnood 00:41 Mar 2 2005 (UTC)

The sharing at RfC seems to be over. I have made a response there. Please take a look. I do hope that with everyone's effort Wikipedia will soon be the best encyclopedia ever. :-D — Instantnood 21:12 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

resistance vs insurgency

I am not necessarily against the change but I can see such a apparently small change being very controversial. I would guess that any article that has a dispute about which term is more appropriate would end having to include both (and mention the definition controversy)? Why did you make this change? zen master T 08:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time for a new vote and/or a new discussion? Though I agree insurgency is the most often used term (as of recently). I think the definition controversy should be noted in any relevant article especially since it is the true that the occupying army is the one that has chosen "insurgency". zen master T 05:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

why do you consider iraq election protesters to be "idiots" exactly?

just wondering. zen master T 19:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the point is to avoid the potential for a charge of hypocrisy. Like when the U.S. tells Syria to leave Lebanaon so the elections can be fair, but then people point out it's the same exact situation with the U.S. occupying Iraq during the elections. I believe the protestors are saying the Iraq elections are very different from post WWII elections, after Germany surrendered the allies lost 0 troops to "insurgent" attacks. The mathematically based allegation that the Shias are 60% of the population of Iraq, the Sunni's largely didn't vote, yet the Shias received less than 50% of the vote is an obviously valid point to make. That seemingly can only happen when a power is "orchestrating" the election process. zen master T 22:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ok, but how does that make the protestors "idiots" exactly? Is it a true statement that the Iraqi elections would at least seem more valid without an occupying force overseeing the situation? I could even agree that in some ways it would be wise to ensure that the Shias didn't get a 50%+ majority until there are checks and balances that prevent tyranny by the majority, but that doesn't mean the U.S. wasn't orchestrating the process. If the iraqi parliment voted tomorrow to price their oil in euros what would happen? Side question: from where does your username come from, DS9? zen master T 01:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since you brought up Falluja and "brutality" what of the U.S. military's use of banned weapons there? Phosphorus rounds are just one example that I can recall off the top of my head. Are you saying 100,000+ civilians killed in the war/occupation is equivalent to the brutality by "warlords" against "locals"? Is there a chance the U.S. is in Iraq for the oil? Are you aware of the original post war economic plan the neocons in the pentagon had for Iraq (the word pillage comes to mind)? I understand you strongly disagree with their politics, but people have a right to protest in a democracy, don't they? If you have the info, how many allied troops were killed in Germany after the end of WWII? zen master T 03:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obsidian, I have read your comments on Zen's talk page. I agree with your facts and reasoning. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I second that...excellently organized and highly intelligent.--MONGO 08:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Klonimus/Islamofascism

Hoùwdy,

Due to an explosion of bad faith editing, bordering on vandalism, in the public article Islamofascism, it is impossible for anyone working in good faith to attempt to improve that article.

I've moved a previous good version t User:Klonimus/Islamofascism. And invite all people commited to creating an NPOV and encyclopaedic article to asist in working on this. The Current VfD on Islamofascism, could go between Keep or merge/Redirect, with merge being the most likely outcome. Ideally assuming that is not a protect redirect. It is hoped that a worthy article can be developed in an enviroment favorable to organic growth. Klonimus 04:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC).

We are on the same side.

Obsidian, you spoke against "prejudge[ing] the subject before the reader gets to it" on the Talk:Saddam_Hussein_and_Al-Qaeda page. I agree with you on this, which is why I spoke against the same on the Talk:9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory page. Since we are on the same side on this issue, perhaps you could put a word or two to that respect on the Talk:9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory page? Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 20:47, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Islamofascism

Come on. Just present material with sources. The previous article wasn't that. It was an original, poorly argued theory that it's okay to call Islamists fascists because you can tenuously argue a link between the two. We have to do better than that. Grace Note 07:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Iraqi Insurgency

I took all your comments into consideration and changed the article accordingly, adding a few sources along the way. As for your questions, yessir, the actual writing is all original, but as usual the facts I've picked up along the way by watching the news. I've cross-referenced as much as I could, or thought I could, but if I missed anything feel free to correct. Thanks for your input - whatever makes this place better, eh? :)

--Kulindar 06:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Klonimus/AINB

Howdy, I'm setting up an anti-idiotarian notice board in order to coordinate the efforts of wikipedian's concerned about the infiltration of POV and apologetics into wikipedia. I'd be honored if you would add this page to your watch list. Klonimus 05:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"conspiracy theory" move

Thanks for the heads-up. Let me know whenever you come across any other retarded proposals. --Daniel11 15:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Magdoff

Got a favor to ask, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff. nobs 02:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Let me know if I can be of help. nobs 20:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism/3RR

Please report 3RR violations at the administrator's noticeboard 3rr page, as is specificed at the vandalism in progress page. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 13:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Bmicomp, thanks, I had reported this at the 3RR page a few days ago and got no response [1]. This has gotten to be a more severe problem since and also extended to other articles and other actions than 3RR, that's why I think it's appropriate to list under vandalism. At least, I hope it increases tha likelyhood it will be dealt with. P.S. Thanks for reporting the vandal's new IP on 3RR. ObsidianOrder 14:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to the new IP, User:198.65.167.221. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 14:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)