User talk:M4-10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome, M4-10! I hope you like the place and choose to stay.

Some links that may be of use:

Check out the Wikipedia:New user log, or here's some stuff you can do, if you want:


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.


By the way, I think you should be a little more bold in editing pages. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders from what I've seen, so don't be afraid to fix text you've mentioned on the talk pages :) If you think that some changes may be rather controversial, you can then explain why on the talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing. Dysprosia 13:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your gentle vocabulary, moron! Rienzo

Thanks! You're a pretty gentle and tolerant person as well! To wit (from Talk:Homophobia):
If you've got the slightest criticism against homosexuals and their right to marry each other and to adopt children, then you're instantly branded as a homophobic. This is truly pathetic! The Holy Bible teaches that homosexual acts are a sin. Not a sin that's more severe than any other sin, but STILL A SIN! If every homosexual has the right to say that homosexuality is normal and morally acceptable, then I've got the right to deem it a sin! Rienzo 10:04, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
--M4-10 18:30, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
This makes me assume that you are a "bögjävel"! Rienzo 21:53, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
If "bögjävel" is "someone who understands Swedish", I'm afraid I'm not. --M4-10 21:58, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

AbuGhraib13.jpg[edit]

I reverted from blurred because this was unnecessary. It is not Wikipedia policy, and international press is printing the full unblurred picture (wires and national). --OldakQuill 21:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

hi M4-10, i sent you an email thru wiki. Could you pass me the source of today's video? Thanks. Xah Lee P0lyglut 23:17, 2004 May 11 (UTC)

Email thru wiki? Ahh, there it is, in hotmail's junk mail filter :P . The url for the Nick Berg decapitation video is http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/ but I believe the site is getting heavy traffic right now, so you might try tomorrow or another day. If I see another place with the video I will link it. In case you haven't been warned enough, the video is pretty horrific.
Update - I've found another link.
--M4-10 23:47, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"Stevertigo, you've shown you were wrong to come to this thread in an admin capacity, and I hope you refrain from using your status as an admin again for this article." - No, I stepped in where it was appropriate, and made no decision to delete or ban anyone. Instead I forced people to discussion, and only after people got talking did I add my own humble view. You can disagree with it if you like, but it would help if you challenged the claims and the views themselves, without accusing me of running the show. There is no 'running the show' here, if one is out of line with the way the community works together. -Stevertigo 17:10, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

stop censoring condi rice article[edit]

The Condi Rice article needs to function as more than just a mouthpiece for Bush and neo-con propaganda. If you look at your contributions, it reads like a laundry list of neo-con edits. Since, the door to the controversial Iraq/9-11 link was opened with a quote that Condi says (yeah I read it again and still think the links are logical...), to not substantiate that topic by linking to other relevant articles in Wikipedia seems like you are purposely sabotaging the content because you do not agree with what they say. Please consider that your POV is not the only one that is relevant to the article. If you have a problem with the names of the articles, or what they contain, please consider renaming them or changing their content. I agree that the Condi article is not the place for this debate, but the pages I linked to are. Thank you and also feel free to write me with your comments if you have any. --Howrealisreal 16:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2006[edit]

In the course of informal discussions at Wikimania in Frankfurt the possibility of having Wikimania 2006 in Vancouver was raised. What makes Canada desirable for such a meeting is the capacity to draw delegates from the United States. For many overseas delegates, however, U.S. visa requirements make that country less attractive. All else being equal, Europeans see Vancouver as a more interesting Canadian city to visit than Toronto, the only other Canadian city to receive significant consideration.

Preliminary bids from various cities need to be made by Sept. 30, 2005. A short list will be drawn from those bids. Is there enough interest and energy to put together such a conference in Vancouver for August 2006? The people in Frankfurt put on a tremendous gathering, with a core organizational group of about a dozen people. Some 400 people attended from 52 different countries.

I expect that a North American Wikimania could be a little smaller, but we would still need a suitable facility. It would be good to know that such a facility is available for a conference; the type of youth hostel facility that was used in Frankfurt does not exist in North America. What would be the cost of hosting such a conference at UBC?

I'm looking for interest and commitment. To that end I am proposing a Vancouver meetup for Saturday, Sept. 24. If someone has a reasonably accesible place for such a meeting please let me know. (I live in Richmond, but something in the city of Vancouver would be more appropriate.)

I am spammiong this to all Vancouver area Wikipedians that I can find. Please reply to my talk page. Eclecticology 21:50:16, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

User Categorization[edit]

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians of British Columbia for instructions. --Doviende 20:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UN sanctioned invasion of Afghanistan[edit]

That was bothering me too.

ISAF[edit]

you have changed peacekeeping to stabilizing in the ISAF article. is this because they were once peacekeeping, but are now stabilizing? or was ISAF never peacekeeping? Kingturtle 02:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peacekeeping is when a 3rd party intervenes on behalf of, and with the permission of, two opposing sides who have committed to ceasing hostilities but need a neutral monitor. In Afganistan there are not two opposing sides committed to a ceasefire who have asked for help. Peacekeepers are neutral. ISAF has a side (the Afganistan government) and will kill Taliban and al-Qaeda forces wherever possible. ISAF, oriented on Kabul, does have a more passive role than forces in other parts of Afganistan. ISAF is there to assist in security (i.e. guard) the capital and the government. Forces involved in Operation Enduring Freedom are more likely to project force, actively seeking to take the fight to Taliban and al-Qaeda. Thanks for your interest. --M4-10 03:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my follow-up question is not questioning your authority on the issue. i am trying to get to the bottom of a contradiction. Is that the U.N.'s definition of peacekeeping? is it the U.S.'s? These U.S. government documents clearly call ISAF a peacekeeping force: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Is the U.S. misusing the term peacekeeper? If so, why? Kingturtle 03:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answers to these questions are unfortunately a bit muddled. Initially I was going to say that the Public Relations Officers who wrote those articles may have inserted the term without thinking (or knowing). However one possibility is that since ISAF is a reaction to the Bonn Agreement, it may be considered peacekeeping with the parties including the fledgling national government and the various quasi-legitimate warlords. But the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not parties to any agreement. To my understanding, without an agreement in place between sides, there is no peacekeeping. "Security Assistance" (the SA in ISAF) to me is a subset of the military term "peace support operations" (peacekeeping is another subset of peace support operations). In the end, I think the NATO and ISAF webpages must be authoritative, and I have seen no mention of the term "peacekeeping" on any of the main documents I have looked at. I don't claim to be an authority, and soldiers (and bureaucrats, and politicians) argue about the meaning of words all the time, but to me 'peacekeeping' has a specific meaning that ISAF does not fit. --M4-10 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Frastacky[edit]

Who 'dat?Michael DoroshTalk 22:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/07/25/bc-carpenter.html I added him to the Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan page as well (as Glyn Berry is there). --M4-10 22:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan friendly fire incident->Tarnak Farm incident[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you've recently moved the Afghanistan friendly fire incident to Tarnak Farm incident. Unfourtunatley, it looks as if you may have done this by cutting and pasting the article to the new title. In doing so, we've lost the history for the original article. If you use the "move" button at the top of the page, the article and history will be moved to the new title, and a redirect will be created at the old title. So, I'm going to nominate Tarnak Farm incident for a speedy deletion, so that the Afghanistan friendly fire incident can be moved there. If you need help with the move or future moves, feel free to drop me a line. Have a great day! Mike McGregor (Can) 19:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --M4-10 01:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

link to British[edit]

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom or Great Britain by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 20:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada and Wars of the 20th Century[edit]

Wow. You're 100% right. I feel a little foolish. Any suggestions? Canada and Wars of the 20th & 21st Century? Doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? -- TheMightyQuill 07:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:M4-10&oldid=1143144959"