Welcome!
Hello, Mr. Tibbs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
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
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
I had to be the first to welcome you!
paul klenk talk 19:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
You appear to be someone acting on factual information rather then your political standing, and this is exactly what we need in the discussion about whether or not the Iraq War is part of the War on Terror. I feel that most editors have been against stating this, but their reasoning has largely been political, or false points. I realize that I could be wrong in this assessment as I obviously am a part of the debate, and this is why I want you to take an objective look at it. The bulk of the debate has been at the invasion article rather then the Iraq War article, so if you have not read it yet that is where it is. If you dont want to read through it all, start at one of the later subheadings, or the poll section where some of the arguments have been put forth against including it, as well as my rebuttals. It would be greatly helpful as it doesnt look to be getting anywhere. Rangeley 20:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Rangeley 20:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Iraq_War#Publicly_stated_objectives clearly states the given objectives. Among them is Terrorists in general, not specifically Al Qaeda. Rangeley 22:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well its good to see someone trying to fix it up as its needed, but my main issue is that terrorism was most certainly a given reason, Al Qaeda being included in this, but not being the only group as that seemed to imply (which was why I originally edited it). Rangeley 22:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that the "publicly stated objectives" were not erroneous. The section was a little bit cumbersome, but nonetheless important to maintain factual accuracy. I'd like mentions of all of the stated objectives in the article, not just the POV "possible ulterior motives" which is speculation. KevinPuj 10:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Your username reminds me of Ethiopian food. Thanks for making me hungry. · Katefan0 (scribble) 14:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Do you know if anywhere, such as on a User:Talk page, BigDaddy has indicated why he doesn't want to respond? I think he has gotten better generally. Marskell 20:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Check BD's Talk page. He's responded to your Arbitration quotation with more personal attacks. It's really sad. Keep up the good work. Eleemosynary 07:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually my footnotes 1 and 2 above pretty much explain your motives. Thus, this rabble-rousing attempt to revive a pathetically overwrought and hysterically shrill dead-as-a-doornail pretend 'problem' which never rose to the level of being dignified by my acknowledgment the first time around, help vindicate my thesis far more eloquently than I ever thought possible. And for that I give you heartfelt thanks. Big Daddy 12:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
...for the message regarding the RfA. paul klenk talk 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Mr. Tibbs. Thanks for your work with the RfC and RfA against BD777. You've placed notices on individual user pages at each stage of this. Should a notice be placed on article Talk pages that have been impacted by this problem being accepeted for arbitration, such as Talk:Karl Rove and Talk:Ann Coulter? It might help to have people who were chased off by the unfolding of events alerted to this major event, to participate in the Arbitration, and perhaps slowly start coming back to the articles in question. Then again, would this additional notice be seen as incendiary? What do you think? -- NightMonkey 06:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
A move for a temporary injunction has been filed to prevent BD from altering or removing comments on his talk page. Please support. -- Woohookitty 07:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I move we reject this brain-dead proposal. (I'm only trying to help WoohooKitty) Big Daddy 08:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Q1werty was here-- Q1werty was here 15:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
All give Redwolf a kiss? I don't care if he's a guy or not. lol Thank god. -- Woohookitty 02:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
"Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine which page they are looking for; these pages aren't for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific place." JDR 18:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Tibbs, running to Steve to get him to help you in attempts to delete the neutral article doesn't help your case. And has been stated .... in the 'Iraq War Talk' _by others_, the technical exposition of facts (as in the War of Iraq article) is the most NPOV. JDR 21:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, looks like you perdicted the War of Iraq deal wrong, Reddi. [16] - Mr. Tibbs 04:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
If you read Talk:John Kerry you will see that a great deal of effort went into agreeing on a new consensus version on 11.03.05. However, the editor you just reverted me in favor of, is threatening to roll everything back 1 month (in single section of article) becuase he is against the new consensus. James has been guard-dogging an arguably POV edit for weeks. At this point, there is consensus to move forward, but he is fighting. Please don't intercede again without reading all the associated talk dialog. Thanks. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 06:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Tibbs, I see what you are doing at John Kerry and it's not funny that you keep swooping in and reverting. These actions of yours, along with your failure to dialog there, while examined in the light of your efforts to push for 3rr against me, do not reflect well on you. I think that you are harming the efforts to resolve this. Please reconsider what you are doing. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 08:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Please read this. Thank you.
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 20:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
User:Woohookitty/Vandals. This vandal started about when Rex stopped posting tonight. And of course, this on the day where I railed at Rex. I wrote a message on his talk page. Honestly, if I don't get an answer or a good answer from him, he's getting blocked. This vandal had all of Rex's characteristics, including watching contrib pages. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 03:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
This has been going on quite long enough. I've opened an arbcom case, and as you are party to this conflict, could you go make a statement there? I think Rex really needs to be dealt with. Being a third party myself, I'm not sure if I got every one, but I'm going to alert Kizzle, JamesMLane, Derex, Jtdirl, and Woohookitty as well. I'd appreciate if you could alert anyone I've missed. Thanks. Dmcdevit· t 06:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4/Evidence. The general arby page for him is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 07:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate you bringing those diff's in as they show areas I need to work on. There were a few months ago, yet there is no excuse. I suppose I thought they were tongue in cheek and I don't have any problem with "foreigners" as my ex was Canadian and my current girlfriend is Croatian. As far as the integrity of the edits themselves, there wasn't any. They were wrong and I admit it. I don't remember working with you in the past but if cross paths again I hope you'll see that my actions have improved and that, as has been all along, albeit misguided at times, my gaol like yours is to build a better encyclopedia. Thank you for your time.-- MONGO 22:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 4 case. Raul654 20:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I apologize if I offended you or made the RFC situation worse than it already was. That was never my intention and I like to think I learned a great deal about Wikipedia from that experience and am a better Wikipedian for it. I made mistakes and for that I am sorry. No hard feelings for your oppose vote. I was not surprised that it came up (see my answer to number 3). Thanks again and have a good one! Gator (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Please read this. Thank you. Jeravicious 01:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest a revision or redifining of the terms in the new edit made to the Iraq War article. A statement should be made that civil war can be defined in the terms of sectarian violence, beacause it is. Also the fact that the President claims that Iraq is not in the state of civil war or disorder is completely contrary to fact and should be pointed out in the article. At any matter it should at least be discussed. Thanks.-- Existential Thinker 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
In light of recent sockpuppeting by Rex071404 ( talk · contribs) a/k/a/ Merecat ( talk · contribs) to violate the permanent ban on his editing of John Kerry, I've requested the fourth and most recent 'Rex' RfAr be reopened and if appropriate, the remedies re-defined and re-applied. As a prior petitioner of that RfAr, I'm notifying you here. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Iraq War. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page ( Talk:Iraq War). Stifle ( talk) 08:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Somewhat late, but this maybe interesting:
Nomen Nescio
Gnothi seauton
10:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I know I'm probably not doing as you'd hoped when you contacted me and I apologize for that. I'm not opposed to polls in general, but I don't see this one 'solving' things without an admin knocking heads together to force them to follow it... which we actually aren't supposed to do most of the time. I do think there may be a way to settle this or that we could have a poll over which of a few different wordings to use in the article once we get some suggestions to consider. -- CBDunkerson 01:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Iraq_War#Mr._Tibbs_Reversions, an explanation is warranted since no summary was left as to why, no factual basis challenged, etc. Please reply on the appropriate article talk page. Thank you -- Zer0faults 20:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if this user's edit history reminds you of anyone. Phr ( talk) 11:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Thought you might want to see
this.
Nomen Nescio
Gnothi seauton
21:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
As a user you had trouble with, too, refuses to solve conflicts reasonably, I would like to ask for your comment. Añoranza 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
== help ! ==
User:Zer0faults and
User talk:NSLE have teamed up to censor comments and push propaganda. I have been blocked by
User talk:NSLE to prevent me from making comments at the RfC.
216.153.214.89 09:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Stroke out comments made "in my name".
Añoranza
10:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You violated the conditions again and it will be noted in my comments section, you placed the RfC information on articles that were not in dispute. Have a good day. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I come here in good faith, let that be said first. Considering your large contribution to the RfC and Anoranza's current status, I feel its appropriate that I discuss the issue you have first. The RfC is suppose to help reach a middle ground between the users involved, and I would like to know what exactly you propose as a middle ground. This would be a starting point for us to hopefully see eye to eye. If you want, you can move this to the RfC page itself, however much like Gorgonzilla and Nescio, I was hoping perhaps we can bring an end to this "situation." -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey there. I've been monitoring and editing (a bit) the Iraq war article and its associated talk pages. I've also paid attention to, and commented in, your RfC concerning Zer0faults. I would really like to solve this problem so we can get back to making Iraq war the clean, readable, NPOV, article it should be. I know you have problems with Zer0fault's comments and attitude, but is there a specific part of the article you want added/changed/removed? I don't think you are going to get anywhere criticizing Zer0fault's civility, it's just not major enough to warrant real action. What can we do to make you happy with the article? Please reply on my talk page or, preferably here, I'll watch it. Let's find a compromise. Nscheffey( T/ C) 10:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
As you already commented on Zer0faults at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Zer0faults you might want to see what comes next. Añoranza 23:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently mediation does not improve the current conflict. Since I am at my wits end I have filed a case at ArbCom. This is to notify you should you wish to comment there. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As you participated in the previous discussion, you may be interested in Talk:Iraq_War#RFC. savidan (talk) (e@) 02:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Mr. Tibbs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
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
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
I had to be the first to welcome you!
paul klenk talk 19:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
You appear to be someone acting on factual information rather then your political standing, and this is exactly what we need in the discussion about whether or not the Iraq War is part of the War on Terror. I feel that most editors have been against stating this, but their reasoning has largely been political, or false points. I realize that I could be wrong in this assessment as I obviously am a part of the debate, and this is why I want you to take an objective look at it. The bulk of the debate has been at the invasion article rather then the Iraq War article, so if you have not read it yet that is where it is. If you dont want to read through it all, start at one of the later subheadings, or the poll section where some of the arguments have been put forth against including it, as well as my rebuttals. It would be greatly helpful as it doesnt look to be getting anywhere. Rangeley 20:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Rangeley 20:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Iraq_War#Publicly_stated_objectives clearly states the given objectives. Among them is Terrorists in general, not specifically Al Qaeda. Rangeley 22:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well its good to see someone trying to fix it up as its needed, but my main issue is that terrorism was most certainly a given reason, Al Qaeda being included in this, but not being the only group as that seemed to imply (which was why I originally edited it). Rangeley 22:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that the "publicly stated objectives" were not erroneous. The section was a little bit cumbersome, but nonetheless important to maintain factual accuracy. I'd like mentions of all of the stated objectives in the article, not just the POV "possible ulterior motives" which is speculation. KevinPuj 10:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Your username reminds me of Ethiopian food. Thanks for making me hungry. · Katefan0 (scribble) 14:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Do you know if anywhere, such as on a User:Talk page, BigDaddy has indicated why he doesn't want to respond? I think he has gotten better generally. Marskell 20:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Check BD's Talk page. He's responded to your Arbitration quotation with more personal attacks. It's really sad. Keep up the good work. Eleemosynary 07:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually my footnotes 1 and 2 above pretty much explain your motives. Thus, this rabble-rousing attempt to revive a pathetically overwrought and hysterically shrill dead-as-a-doornail pretend 'problem' which never rose to the level of being dignified by my acknowledgment the first time around, help vindicate my thesis far more eloquently than I ever thought possible. And for that I give you heartfelt thanks. Big Daddy 12:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
...for the message regarding the RfA. paul klenk talk 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Mr. Tibbs. Thanks for your work with the RfC and RfA against BD777. You've placed notices on individual user pages at each stage of this. Should a notice be placed on article Talk pages that have been impacted by this problem being accepeted for arbitration, such as Talk:Karl Rove and Talk:Ann Coulter? It might help to have people who were chased off by the unfolding of events alerted to this major event, to participate in the Arbitration, and perhaps slowly start coming back to the articles in question. Then again, would this additional notice be seen as incendiary? What do you think? -- NightMonkey 06:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
A move for a temporary injunction has been filed to prevent BD from altering or removing comments on his talk page. Please support. -- Woohookitty 07:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I move we reject this brain-dead proposal. (I'm only trying to help WoohooKitty) Big Daddy 08:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Q1werty was here-- Q1werty was here 15:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
All give Redwolf a kiss? I don't care if he's a guy or not. lol Thank god. -- Woohookitty 02:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
"Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine which page they are looking for; these pages aren't for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific place." JDR 18:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Tibbs, running to Steve to get him to help you in attempts to delete the neutral article doesn't help your case. And has been stated .... in the 'Iraq War Talk' _by others_, the technical exposition of facts (as in the War of Iraq article) is the most NPOV. JDR 21:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, looks like you perdicted the War of Iraq deal wrong, Reddi. [16] - Mr. Tibbs 04:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
If you read Talk:John Kerry you will see that a great deal of effort went into agreeing on a new consensus version on 11.03.05. However, the editor you just reverted me in favor of, is threatening to roll everything back 1 month (in single section of article) becuase he is against the new consensus. James has been guard-dogging an arguably POV edit for weeks. At this point, there is consensus to move forward, but he is fighting. Please don't intercede again without reading all the associated talk dialog. Thanks. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 06:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Tibbs, I see what you are doing at John Kerry and it's not funny that you keep swooping in and reverting. These actions of yours, along with your failure to dialog there, while examined in the light of your efforts to push for 3rr against me, do not reflect well on you. I think that you are harming the efforts to resolve this. Please reconsider what you are doing. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 08:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Please read this. Thank you.
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 20:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
User:Woohookitty/Vandals. This vandal started about when Rex stopped posting tonight. And of course, this on the day where I railed at Rex. I wrote a message on his talk page. Honestly, if I don't get an answer or a good answer from him, he's getting blocked. This vandal had all of Rex's characteristics, including watching contrib pages. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 03:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
This has been going on quite long enough. I've opened an arbcom case, and as you are party to this conflict, could you go make a statement there? I think Rex really needs to be dealt with. Being a third party myself, I'm not sure if I got every one, but I'm going to alert Kizzle, JamesMLane, Derex, Jtdirl, and Woohookitty as well. I'd appreciate if you could alert anyone I've missed. Thanks. Dmcdevit· t 06:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4/Evidence. The general arby page for him is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 07:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate you bringing those diff's in as they show areas I need to work on. There were a few months ago, yet there is no excuse. I suppose I thought they were tongue in cheek and I don't have any problem with "foreigners" as my ex was Canadian and my current girlfriend is Croatian. As far as the integrity of the edits themselves, there wasn't any. They were wrong and I admit it. I don't remember working with you in the past but if cross paths again I hope you'll see that my actions have improved and that, as has been all along, albeit misguided at times, my gaol like yours is to build a better encyclopedia. Thank you for your time.-- MONGO 22:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 4 case. Raul654 20:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I apologize if I offended you or made the RFC situation worse than it already was. That was never my intention and I like to think I learned a great deal about Wikipedia from that experience and am a better Wikipedian for it. I made mistakes and for that I am sorry. No hard feelings for your oppose vote. I was not surprised that it came up (see my answer to number 3). Thanks again and have a good one! Gator (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Please read this. Thank you. Jeravicious 01:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest a revision or redifining of the terms in the new edit made to the Iraq War article. A statement should be made that civil war can be defined in the terms of sectarian violence, beacause it is. Also the fact that the President claims that Iraq is not in the state of civil war or disorder is completely contrary to fact and should be pointed out in the article. At any matter it should at least be discussed. Thanks.-- Existential Thinker 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
In light of recent sockpuppeting by Rex071404 ( talk · contribs) a/k/a/ Merecat ( talk · contribs) to violate the permanent ban on his editing of John Kerry, I've requested the fourth and most recent 'Rex' RfAr be reopened and if appropriate, the remedies re-defined and re-applied. As a prior petitioner of that RfAr, I'm notifying you here. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Iraq War. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page ( Talk:Iraq War). Stifle ( talk) 08:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Somewhat late, but this maybe interesting:
Nomen Nescio
Gnothi seauton
10:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I know I'm probably not doing as you'd hoped when you contacted me and I apologize for that. I'm not opposed to polls in general, but I don't see this one 'solving' things without an admin knocking heads together to force them to follow it... which we actually aren't supposed to do most of the time. I do think there may be a way to settle this or that we could have a poll over which of a few different wordings to use in the article once we get some suggestions to consider. -- CBDunkerson 01:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Iraq_War#Mr._Tibbs_Reversions, an explanation is warranted since no summary was left as to why, no factual basis challenged, etc. Please reply on the appropriate article talk page. Thank you -- Zer0faults 20:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if this user's edit history reminds you of anyone. Phr ( talk) 11:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Thought you might want to see
this.
Nomen Nescio
Gnothi seauton
21:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
As a user you had trouble with, too, refuses to solve conflicts reasonably, I would like to ask for your comment. Añoranza 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
== help ! ==
User:Zer0faults and
User talk:NSLE have teamed up to censor comments and push propaganda. I have been blocked by
User talk:NSLE to prevent me from making comments at the RfC.
216.153.214.89 09:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Stroke out comments made "in my name".
Añoranza
10:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You violated the conditions again and it will be noted in my comments section, you placed the RfC information on articles that were not in dispute. Have a good day. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I come here in good faith, let that be said first. Considering your large contribution to the RfC and Anoranza's current status, I feel its appropriate that I discuss the issue you have first. The RfC is suppose to help reach a middle ground between the users involved, and I would like to know what exactly you propose as a middle ground. This would be a starting point for us to hopefully see eye to eye. If you want, you can move this to the RfC page itself, however much like Gorgonzilla and Nescio, I was hoping perhaps we can bring an end to this "situation." -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey there. I've been monitoring and editing (a bit) the Iraq war article and its associated talk pages. I've also paid attention to, and commented in, your RfC concerning Zer0faults. I would really like to solve this problem so we can get back to making Iraq war the clean, readable, NPOV, article it should be. I know you have problems with Zer0fault's comments and attitude, but is there a specific part of the article you want added/changed/removed? I don't think you are going to get anywhere criticizing Zer0fault's civility, it's just not major enough to warrant real action. What can we do to make you happy with the article? Please reply on my talk page or, preferably here, I'll watch it. Let's find a compromise. Nscheffey( T/ C) 10:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
As you already commented on Zer0faults at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Zer0faults you might want to see what comes next. Añoranza 23:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently mediation does not improve the current conflict. Since I am at my wits end I have filed a case at ArbCom. This is to notify you should you wish to comment there. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As you participated in the previous discussion, you may be interested in Talk:Iraq_War#RFC. savidan (talk) (e@) 02:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)