This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Just out of interest, has the term Waziristan War ever officially been used? -- Horses In The Sky 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
no-we are the first to use it.-- TheFEARgod 14:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it fair to call it a 'war', aren't there definitions on such things, at least in Wikipedia. The Chad-Sudan thing isn't even called a war, would 'conflict' be better? - User:Dalta
maybe also insurgency?-- TheFEARgod 00:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If there are disputes over this term, please post your factual information regarding why you are against it here. Please do not simply constantly remove it or add "this term is disputed" without a discussion here first. Thank you -- Zer0faults 17:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
For some reason I don't think the Paskitan comander Pervez Musharraf would be comanding U.S. froces.
Where did the 50 American casualties come from, as far as I know with the exception og the air strike mentioned American forces have not been engaged in Waziristan. -- Jedi18 12:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Canada is a part of this too, even look it up on the internet. The Person Who Is Strange 21:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[1] Seems as though its nearing an end, which could perhaps be summarized as a failure to oust the warlords from power. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 03:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The fighting was strengthening the warlords who are a domestic problem for Pakistan. Better to end the fighting and tackle the problem through development and politics.
The statement "if this peace treaty holds it means the end of the Waziristan conflict" is sadly just no longer valid, ie: the 2007-present Waziristan conflict. which is why statement like that are not really enyclopedic because they don't add anything. Of course if the peace treaty holds it marks the end of the conflict, you could easily add the statement on the end of that that says "but if it doesn't hold the conflict will flare up again". But of course that's silly, I have to edit it, sorry. Colin 8 19:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I put the copyedit template because the article is a little messy and needs order-- TheFEARgod 17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Could Mohammad Omar be in Waziristan?--16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
2004-2006 Waziristan conflict - a more precise name than the previous. AFAIK war wasn't mentioned or declared by any media or government organisation-- TheFEARgod 13:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I propose this name as an informal name-- TheFEARgod ( listening) 12:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
In the leader it suggests the peace treaty will include the ejection of foreign militants etc., but in the truce section with more detail it seems to suggest they will be able to say - which is correct? -- 86.128.253.74 21:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[5] impiles you are either, or both. After indisciminately reverting all and every of my edits once again (third or fourth time), you "Restored useful edits by Idleguy." And what were these "useful edits"? Putting citation needed to my ("unuseful") edit about prisoners taken and released - thing you just removed with everything else I changed or added [6], even while the other figures were obviously all sourced by then.
So, would you please answer my question? If you are only retarded, or insane, I'd get easy on you. But if you are warring on me (a terrorist) because of some unknown personal reasons, this is another thing.
Btw (to everyone interested): it's sourced now, but I guess it will be reverted right away back to the "useful" citation needed, relating to nothing. Seriously, would someone do something with the user WoT? Thanks. -- HanzoHattori 20:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I won't talk to you as long as you keep insulting me. That is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Warrior on Terrorism 02:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you guys please work this out? It's getting ridiculous. Hanzo, please make your edits a bit at a time, and discuss each major one here on the talk page. Warrior, if you take issue to a major edit, please discuss why here on the talk page. Further reverts by you two is going to get this article protected. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You got it, pal. Warrior on Terrorism 04:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This page is a favorite of Copperchair ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sockpuppets. Copperchair was placed on probation and banned from editing certain types of articles by the Arbitration Committee. He was blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeatedly violating his restrictions on editing. He was finally blocked for 366 days on March 12, 2006. At that point he began using sockpuppets to evade his ban. Below is a list of his sockpuppets. If new editors appear on this page with editing patterns that are similar to the sockpuppets below, please let me know on my talk page or by e-mail so that I can investigate fully.
Thank you. TomTheHand 14:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering what people thought about changing the name a little. Basically, taking out the "2004-2006" since this war looks like it is continuing
http://www.dawn.com/2007/01/23/top1.htm
Publicus
19:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Al-Qaeda#flag. 190.10.0.111 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I was going to correct some spelling in the following provision, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and removed it instead. If someone can figure out what it is trying to say (and can find evidence for it in the cited source), feel free to reword it and add it back:
Lexicon (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this means that the arms shops that were set up and the weapons that were issued during the time of the Soviet-Afghan war are now considered illegal. So basically I think this statement refers to "gun control", the prohibition of proliferation of arms and the tradition of having arms. Not sure, but that's my guess.
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Just out of interest, has the term Waziristan War ever officially been used? -- Horses In The Sky 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
no-we are the first to use it.-- TheFEARgod 14:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it fair to call it a 'war', aren't there definitions on such things, at least in Wikipedia. The Chad-Sudan thing isn't even called a war, would 'conflict' be better? - User:Dalta
maybe also insurgency?-- TheFEARgod 00:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If there are disputes over this term, please post your factual information regarding why you are against it here. Please do not simply constantly remove it or add "this term is disputed" without a discussion here first. Thank you -- Zer0faults 17:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
For some reason I don't think the Paskitan comander Pervez Musharraf would be comanding U.S. froces.
Where did the 50 American casualties come from, as far as I know with the exception og the air strike mentioned American forces have not been engaged in Waziristan. -- Jedi18 12:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Canada is a part of this too, even look it up on the internet. The Person Who Is Strange 21:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[1] Seems as though its nearing an end, which could perhaps be summarized as a failure to oust the warlords from power. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 03:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The fighting was strengthening the warlords who are a domestic problem for Pakistan. Better to end the fighting and tackle the problem through development and politics.
The statement "if this peace treaty holds it means the end of the Waziristan conflict" is sadly just no longer valid, ie: the 2007-present Waziristan conflict. which is why statement like that are not really enyclopedic because they don't add anything. Of course if the peace treaty holds it marks the end of the conflict, you could easily add the statement on the end of that that says "but if it doesn't hold the conflict will flare up again". But of course that's silly, I have to edit it, sorry. Colin 8 19:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I put the copyedit template because the article is a little messy and needs order-- TheFEARgod 17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Could Mohammad Omar be in Waziristan?--16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
2004-2006 Waziristan conflict - a more precise name than the previous. AFAIK war wasn't mentioned or declared by any media or government organisation-- TheFEARgod 13:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I propose this name as an informal name-- TheFEARgod ( listening) 12:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
In the leader it suggests the peace treaty will include the ejection of foreign militants etc., but in the truce section with more detail it seems to suggest they will be able to say - which is correct? -- 86.128.253.74 21:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[5] impiles you are either, or both. After indisciminately reverting all and every of my edits once again (third or fourth time), you "Restored useful edits by Idleguy." And what were these "useful edits"? Putting citation needed to my ("unuseful") edit about prisoners taken and released - thing you just removed with everything else I changed or added [6], even while the other figures were obviously all sourced by then.
So, would you please answer my question? If you are only retarded, or insane, I'd get easy on you. But if you are warring on me (a terrorist) because of some unknown personal reasons, this is another thing.
Btw (to everyone interested): it's sourced now, but I guess it will be reverted right away back to the "useful" citation needed, relating to nothing. Seriously, would someone do something with the user WoT? Thanks. -- HanzoHattori 20:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I won't talk to you as long as you keep insulting me. That is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Warrior on Terrorism 02:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you guys please work this out? It's getting ridiculous. Hanzo, please make your edits a bit at a time, and discuss each major one here on the talk page. Warrior, if you take issue to a major edit, please discuss why here on the talk page. Further reverts by you two is going to get this article protected. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You got it, pal. Warrior on Terrorism 04:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This page is a favorite of Copperchair ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sockpuppets. Copperchair was placed on probation and banned from editing certain types of articles by the Arbitration Committee. He was blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeatedly violating his restrictions on editing. He was finally blocked for 366 days on March 12, 2006. At that point he began using sockpuppets to evade his ban. Below is a list of his sockpuppets. If new editors appear on this page with editing patterns that are similar to the sockpuppets below, please let me know on my talk page or by e-mail so that I can investigate fully.
Thank you. TomTheHand 14:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering what people thought about changing the name a little. Basically, taking out the "2004-2006" since this war looks like it is continuing
http://www.dawn.com/2007/01/23/top1.htm
Publicus
19:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Al-Qaeda#flag. 190.10.0.111 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I was going to correct some spelling in the following provision, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and removed it instead. If someone can figure out what it is trying to say (and can find evidence for it in the cited source), feel free to reword it and add it back:
Lexicon (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this means that the arms shops that were set up and the weapons that were issued during the time of the Soviet-Afghan war are now considered illegal. So basically I think this statement refers to "gun control", the prohibition of proliferation of arms and the tradition of having arms. Not sure, but that's my guess.