Hello, Reargun, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
3. You can request a mentor to help you: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. These acronyms don't need to intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: Deletion debate acronyms, which will help you argue that the article should be kept.
I sense a sizeable edit war looming over Asymmetric warfare, which I think you are interpreting far too narrowly (for example, if the Guantanamo Base commander described the suicides there in 2006 as "an act of asymmetric warfare," by what authority do you challenge him?). To start establishing some ground rules, could you please tell me when, in your opinion, the War of American Independence (aka ...) began? David Trochos (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply did not answer either of my questions above. Rear Admiral (now Vice Admiral) Harry Harris, then in charge of JTF-GTMO, was quoted by the BBC (and many other news organisations) as stated in the deleted section, and he ought to be considered a fairly reliable source. Colleen Graffy, the deputy assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy added "It does sound like this is part of a strategy in that they don't value their own lives … they certainly don't value ours and they use suicide bombings as a tactic". The use of suicide to demoralise opposing forces goes back at least to the time of King Goujian of Yue (c496 BCE). But anyway, there's a whole load of other problems with your edits to deal with- and your answer to my second question might help us find a way forward. David Trochos (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you haven't actually answered my questions, just restated your personal opinion on the quoted example without explaining why the analysis of US Government oficials is inadequate. As for Bobby Sands- he was a member of a body calling itself the Provisional Irish Republican Army. People fought and died for political ends; some very complex strategies were used. Just because the events were euphemistically called "The Troubles" doesn't mean there wasn't an asymmetric war going on. David Trochos (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't answered my questions, but at least the answers you are giving, and your latest edit to the page, are giving me some clues. Dealing with the latter first- what was required in that case (the effectiveness of US covert action in Afghanistan) was a Citation Needed tag, not a deletion. And as it happens, that leads us neatly to the reason why it's difficult to find citations for events in the 1970s as examples of Asymmetric Warfare- the term was coined during the Russian Afghanistan campaign, and didn't come into English until about 1991, so military historians have had less than two decades to write about earlier examples using the newly-developing model. So I can claim, but not add to Wikipedia without citations, that the IRA hunger strikes (and other prisoner actions) were (a) carried out by military personnel; (b) directly related to the asymmetric war then being fought over the province because they were effectively about the denial of prisoner-of-war status; and (c) successful in advancing the PIRA's war aims. Paradoxically, though, that need not be relevant to the Guantanamo case, because it is clear that you have misunderstood the reason for the inclusion of that information in the article, in the form in which it was presented. The quotation was used, quite correctly, though not originally by me, to illustrate the wide range of actions which the world's most conventionally powerful nation is prepared to label as "acts of asymmetric war"- whether or not Clausewitz would have agreed is not important; what matters is that prisoner suicides are among the factors being taken into account by the US administration in its current asymmetric war efforts. So unless you happen to be a senior US military figure, your opinion on the matter counts for little. David Trochos (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I began this discussion on your talk page in hopes of establishing the viewpoint behind your sweeping chenges to Asymmetric Warfare, but unfortunately we've got bogged down on the single issue of the Guantanamo suicides (which, as I indicated above, were not introduced to the article by me, but the inclusion of which I support in the specific form in which they were presented, for the reason I gave yesterday). When I have time, I'll open up a broader debate on the article's talk page, based on a modified reversion of your edits. David Trochos (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Megrahi Article
Hi there Reargun.
Thank you for your edits to the Megrahi article. I notice that English is not your first language. Do you mind if I tidy up the edit to read a bit better. Cheers!
Just to explain Doug Weller's reversion of your edit on this word on Bible and History: "reduction" means to make smaller, "redaction" means to edit. Useful to know in biblical articles, as it's a word that gets used a lot :). PiCo (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? I'm not making the claim. You deleted without making clear you object to it being uncited. Also, if you want to message me, do use my talk page, not my user page? TREKphilerhit me ♠ 00:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism claims and your edits
Hi. Referring to my reversion of your edit as vandalism suggests that you do not actually know what vandalism is; if you don't know, don't accuse people of it. My edit was explained in my edit summary; you removed the cited material stating that it was uncited, and replaced it with material showing an opposing viewpoint. I highly suggest that if you have a problem with that article, you discuss it on the talk page before editing it again. Tony Fox(arf!)21:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Doesn't break the narrative"? I suggest you look again at where you tried to jam it in. It's completely inappropriate there. More to the point, it's just another exhortation, nothing unusual. "No fighter escort"? Wrong. Failed rdv, yes, but escort was assigned & expected; read the page. "First American kamikaze"? Preposterous. They expected to come back. That they didn't is a fault of inexperience & bad co-ordination, by no means a deliberate plan of Fletcher or Nimitz, contrary to Ozawa. Combat pilots have an expectation, also, they might get killed; that's the nature of combat, & all Waldron is talking about. And complaining about my talk page is a futile exercise; FYI, I'm entitled to edit it any way I please. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 08:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We may disagree on my talk, but I suggest the Midway page is where the issue should have been dealt with entire, rather than limiting it to just us, in any case. That's where the effect would be, so all interested parties could, & should, get their fair say. (And did, I might say.) FYI, it wasn't personal. I'm personally happy to see somebody take a real interest in any page (esp one I watch :) ). TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 14:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
January 2010
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at David. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. You've been warned about this before. I explained my edit in the edit summary and on the talk page and added references. Vandalism is deliberately trying to bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Also read WP:AGFDougweller (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition to Eucalyptus has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please do not lift text from the Burkes Backyard website and also do not add your opinion or issue which doesn't involve with the edit or Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy yourself Dougweller, I am going to lose you
14:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Sock puppetry
Please read WP:Sock. If you want to tag your alternate account as an alternate account and this as a master account, you may do that. What you can't do is remove the sockpuppet tag on your alternate account without replacing it with an alternate account tag. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've blocked your sockpuppet indefinitely after it was CU confirmed. Please don't create any more. And please don't edit logged out. I'm not blocking you -- I'm assuming good faith, see WP:AGF. Please don't prove me wrong. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
February 2010
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for When Reargun's sock puppet was confirmed by CU, I decided not to block Reargun as a gesture of good faith. Since then he's been editing by IP a couple of times and his sock has denied being a sock puppet, saying that Reargun should be blocked instead.
Because of this, I am blocking Reargun indefinitely. Easily unblockable if Reargun admits to the sock puppetry and stops.
