User talk:A Nobody/Archive 9

Question from power corrupts

• User_talk:Ikip#no_real-world_notability_established You seem very well versed in policy, Maybe you could help answer? Ikip (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, you know me, I oppose any and all use of "notability." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

All right

If you're ready to undergo a user request for comment, I'm perfectly willing to initiate one; and, given the entries on your talk page, I don't think I'd have any trouble establishing, or getting other users to support the contention, that multiple users have tried to resolve the problems with your behavior and been unsuccessful. I didn't want it to come to this, but your behavior since your return under your new username has become so similar to your previous behavior that something needs to be done. This kind of crap has just got to stop, and if you're not willing to stop it, your current behavior, as well as your behavior under previous accounts, will be a subject for comment in whatever forum will consider it. Deor (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am telling you straight up to end this fixation of me. I have had to contend with your personal attacks and incivility under my old name ([1], [2], etc.) and now you're stalking my edits under my new name. We are here to build a paperless encyclopedia. Stop harassing me. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome2

Hey, please use {{Welcome2}} to welcome new users, please :( Ikip (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the wonderful smile message. Amazing how such a small gesture can make someone feel so good.

The reason is because Welcome 2 adds a ==Welcome== to the top of the page, whereas Welcome template adds only '''Welcome!''' as a user page grows, it becomes necessary to change the '''Welcome!''' to ==Welcome==. So editors can immediately see the contents. See alsoTemplate_talk:Welcome/Archive_4#Formatting_change. Ikip (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it a whirl. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

there is this really cool trick add: subst, to the beginning of any template, and all of the coding of the template is superimposed on the page. So the correct form is: {{subst:Welcome2}} With many templates, like the barnstar templates, you have to add the subst: or the template doesn't work correctly.

I have thought of making a bot to change all of the '''Welcome!''' to ==Welcome== Ikip (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try that next. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		This well deserved barnstar is awarded to A nobody, for his dilegent efforts to defend new users and advocate the interests of new users. Thank you for helping the project immensely, by making wikipedia a more tolerant and welcome place for everyone. Ikip (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Stwalkerster [ talk ] has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks! :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiya

Itsmejudith (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Greetings, oh smiley one. I saw you have a user box saying you like Trivia sections. I usually change these to "Cultural references" and then they sound very dignified and encyclopedia-ish, while containing the same info as before. Yours cheerfully, Itsmejudith (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and that is good idea!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile to you!

Acalamari has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Information to use

Finally, as the game uses a "new 3D engine," it "features 3D units..."

GamePro asserts that "Ensemble's also done a fine job in balancing unit types; there's more to the interaction between Myth, Hero, and regular units than the simple 'archers are good against horses' system you're used to, and good players will be forced to balance their armies in order to succeed."

Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile

Thanks for the beautiful smile. I am also accepting tigers on my user page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, AN! Dekkappai (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. As a member of Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, I'm just trying to do my part to help make our project a friendlier more collegial place. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you also. I know we don't always agree, but I appreciate that we can be civil in our disagreements (in the same boat as Voltaire). Stifle (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome!  :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thank you from me too! I wish kind gestures were more routine on our project; sometimes it seems overrun with hostility, incivility, and egotism, but just seeing that smile brightened my day. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That's part of the reason why I sent them out today; we need this place to be more collegial and friendly!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile, believe it or not, it helped :) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome!  :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What did I do to deserve this :-/ 83.67.39.175 (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Another thank you for the smile! It may my day! (actually night). Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy to read that!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile, A Nobody. It confused me a bit, but I get it to be a bit of fun with no particular reasoning. Thanks again. hornoir (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Count me in. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome!  :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your kind smile, you're always giving these sort of things to people, thanks for such kindess. Ffgamera (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and hey, somebody has to make this place more pleasant, no? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ER

I noticed that you ER is still open, yet it has been 30 days. As a mission to clear the backlog of ER, we are trying to archive some requests. I see that your request has had a couple reviews, are you satisfied with those reviews in order for me to archive it? Or would you wish to continue to have it open for a bit longer?--TRUCO 03:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If possible, I would prefer it be left open as just today an editor asked a question, but has not yet left a review; thus, I believe their is still some interest. Thanks for the note! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I would appreciate it if you notify me once you are satisfied to do proper archival. Cheers.--TRUCO 03:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to move it off the main list page, is it possible to do that, but where it isn't in some archive format? I link to it off my userpage and so those who know me would still be able to find it, but if it's cluttering the main ER list page, I don't think it need still be listed there? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

1 nom really doesn't make a difference, so yours can remain open for a bit longer once you are fully satisfied. ER has recently gone through a revamp, which is why I brought this up.--TRUCO 04:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, too bad we can't just leave these open indefinitely as I do find it useful having a clear place for feedback and question beyond just the talk page. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: AfD

I changed my vote to week keep but i still think the article amounts to fancruft. Letsdrinktea (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an open-mind. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Techically, this is "WikiLike". It's clearly not sexual.

Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Smile

Hey, thanks! :) — neuro^(talk) 08:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile! :) Hope everything is grand on your end. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been better, but I suppose I've been worse, too. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 21:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, number 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Mwalla (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks. I have been in an edit war with someone and then he forced the deletion of a page I created. I think it can be resovled with compromise, he seems good intentioned. Mwalla (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla

You're welcome! Best wishes with the dispute! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Now this same guy is trying to get a page I created deleted, I feel out of spite. Yes, it is a biographical page of someone who is not a household name.... check it out here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fred_M._Levin_(2nd_nomination) Mwalla (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Okay, as soon as I have a chance. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bridge to Terabithia

I'm perfectly aware of the movies, you'd be best to argue your case in the afd, not over people's talk pages.--Sloane (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have found in the past that many just post in the Afd never to return to see new arguments or improvements in the articles. Anyway, I have begun revising both: [3] and [4]. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} If you check near the middle of User:A_Nobody#Barnstars.2C_cookies.2C_smiles.2C_and_thanks one of the smiles from travb and a New Year's Message from FloNight seem to be merged with each other where the smile is detached. Could someone please fix that? :) Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, that looks like a mess. I'll see what I can do in a minute or two. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 02:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

fixed. Don't ask why I used the checkmark :P Inferno, Lord of Penguins 02:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks!  :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

Dear A Nobody, I've seen you here and there, and I look forward to working with you on this project. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

AdjustShift (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the smile! KnightLago (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome!  :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me know

as requested if it grows wings and takes flight--Buster7 (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, god forbid, would that be canvassing? :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it would be canvassing. AMiB, Protonk and company said so. They're always right. Especially when they're wrong. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jesse Aarons AFD

What I meant was to re-direct the page to Bridge to Terabithia. The "fictional biography" section is the only part that is actually helpful to the reader. As there is not a substantial amount of additional information, it is better to merge it into the main article-Binary TSO ^???

Again there's Bridge to Terabithia (novel), Bridge_to_Terabithia_(1985_film), and Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film). The character article is relevant to all three of these. Not any one is the clear redirect location. In fact the character article serves as a gateway to these different adaptations. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The novel is the clear redirect location since it is the original work of which both movies are based on. The novel should be serving as the gateway to the different adaptations, and it should(and does) include virtually all the same information as the individual character articles. 216.211.255.98 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In scenarios like this when they get dozens of Google News and Google Books results, we expand and improve instead. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

So expand and improve these articles, otherwise they should be and hopefully will be merged with the main article about the novel. 216.211.255.98 (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Gladly, but you said to delete the one, please at least allow for a merge and redirect. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete because everything on both pages already exists in the main novel article. It doesn't hurt anything for these to be deleted, the names will still appear in searches under the main novel article as well as in the movie articles.216.211.255.98 (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt anything by keeping them and again, they concern characters from not just the novel but also TWO films and thus are not simply relevant to the novel articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The two films and the novels are all the same story, just because a story is remade multiple times doesn't make the characters any more notable, and from my point of view it does hurt wikipedia to keep articles like this since it sets a poor precedent to allow these to remain when they serve no informational purpose that isn't covered in the other articles. If you think they can be improved then please go spend some time and improve them instead of trying to convince people who can't be convinced, take out the plot summaries and improve the articles to something worthy of being kept, until that happens you aren't likely to change mine or anyone else's mind. 216.211.255.98 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles on the separate characters are good for us, because they allow for the realistic potential of including information on how the presentation of the characters change from medium to medium. Deleting the articles would be detrimental to our project because we have valuable mergeable and improveable content and as such would diminish our coverage of a notable topic and mybe even turn away the good faith volunteers who actually do write these and other articles. Anyway, I have begun revising both: [5] and [6]. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the plot summary of each text type be sufficient in covering the development of the character? -Binary TSO ^???

Anyway, regarding Jesse Aarons, please note that I have added some additional out of universe information on development and reception. Sincerely,--A Nobody^{My talk} 18:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirects query

You linked to this article Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Not properly attributing contributions in merge edit summaries on this talk page. I have been doing a few redirects myself, I'd like to know what the first link referred to and if my own redirects (like this one) have been done correctly. Alastairward (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Instead of redirecting, you should first try to make some out of universe sectioncs on reception and the like from Google News and Google Books. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the smile. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, good wishes to you as well! :) I've been busy working on getting articles to GA status lately, with quite a bit of success. It's really rewarding when you get something that was nearly deleted to be recognized as a GA! BOZ (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A pleasant surprise indeed. Thanks! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 02:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks from me too :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, too!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Smile. :) Cirt (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from me also! :-)--Patton^t/c 20:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, also! :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting Canvas Comment which has become an issue for ARS and Ikip. To let individuals (that have stepped out of WikiLine and signed up for duty in a group they, as free-flying Wiki-Editors, support) know that they may want to participate in a discussion is not canvassing. In this case, I clearly stated to all editors present that I wished to be involved. Of course, it is reasonable to assume it would be someone from ARS. My point is members of ARS have done the same: they have said they want to be involved. Or , at least, informed. I don't think that is canvasing. To me, canvassing is like one of those big nets that shore fisherman use to catch bait. "just cast it out and see what happens"--Buster7 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be required that everyone who contributed to an article be notified on their talk page of the AfD, i.e. just in case if they have it watchlisted. I would rather have a consensus based on those who actually know about the subject than the usual copy and paste drive by "per nom" and "cruft" non-arguments we get that can't logically reflect the actual honest opinion of our community. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

List of war crimes

Dear Nobody, ;-)

I'm a bit disappointed that you deleted my "proposal for deletion" just 4 minutes after I wrote it. I don't know if you had the time to read the article before doing so, but it took me two hours to read the article, study the discussion page, read the article, write the delete proposal etc., and I had hoped to at least incite some discussion. There are other people on the discussion page that seemed to share my opinion.

I do not know what your comment means, "it can be found in some book"?? I think if you had waited for at least two days before removing the proposal, it would have been in everybody's interest. Maybe some people caring about the article would have given their opinion. The way it is now, all of the parts after WW II, are a at best an unorganized collection of events, in the worst case a one-sided presentation of allegations, or apologias. Was there some formal mistake I did or what? Maybe I should have an account? (I'm on the German and Spanish wikipedia User:KlausN), but I thought it would be stupid to create an account, just to propose the deletion. Anyway. Ciao

Klaus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.2.152.50 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello! It is not simply that they are covered in a book, but in literally dozens of books. Could/should the article be improved, probably, but deleted, no? As it is clear that sufficient sourcing does exist to justify such an article in some capacity. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered that I did create a long time ago a user account. :-)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming war crimes do not exist. If one would read the books you are linking to, one could probably write an article more than worthy of any encyclopedia but the way it is, the article is really lacking. Of course, you can write an article "list of Englishmen" and then copy the phone book of Gloucester, then, because you also have an Uncle and an Aunt who are English, you also add them to your list, and of course you would delete several people you dislike. But would you consider that a scholarly work? What can you learn from it? Is it a fair description of the English people? The article in question has been tagged for 1 and a half years with "This article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Please help improve this article by checking for inaccuracies." and "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Not much seems to have changed. I'm not going to improve it, because I have no clue about history, but it seems obvious that most post WW II-additions to this article were not done with the intention to provide a clear picture about some moment in history, but in a very casual way, often with the intention to defend or to blame some nation. Read the discussion page...

Examples: Where is the Spanish civil war? Spanish_civil_war#Atrocities_during_the_war (Go read it, then you update this article ;-) The victim count of executions seems to be in the 100,000s range. This seems to me to be of a certain significance.

It is really difficult for me to argue, because English is a foreign language, and I'm afraid of appearing as trying to defend some murder or some crime, but if you look at order of magnitude, or whether events are typical for the methods used by some faction or the other, than you read "Murder of Ahmed Shah Massoud" for the war in Afghanistan (the word "perfidious" is used twice in the description). If you go to Civil_war_in_Afghanistan_(1996-2001), you can read "the Taliban were defeated, and 3,000 of their soldiers were captured and executed.", "Upon taking it, they (the Taliban) began a mass killing of the locals; 4,000 to 5,000 civilians were executed, and many more reported tortured.", "It was later admitted that the (Iranian) diplomats were killed by the Taliban, and their bodies were returned to Iran". Why not mention these things, and these are just from the wikipedia page describing 5 years of civil war in Afghanistan, and it just took me 3 minutes to go through the article. I guess you agree with me that the war crimes in Afghanistan have been adequately treated in List of war crimes.

It is such a pity that I cannot express my self, but how laughable: "(Iran) laid mines in international waters[citation needed] no prosecutions Mines damaged the US frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts" What about "During the Operation Nimble Archer in October 1987, the U.S. attacked Iranian oil platforms in retaliation for an Iranian attack on the U.S.-flagged Kuwaiti tanker Sea Isle City.[45] On 14 April 1988, the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was badly damaged by an Iranian mine, suffering 10 wounded but no dead. U.S. forces responded with Operation Praying Mantis on 18 April, the United States Navy's largest engagement of surface warships since World War II. Two Iranian oil platforms, two Iranian ships and six Iranian gunboats were destroyed. An American helicopter also crashed.[45]" "In the course of these escorts by the U.S. Navy, the cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew on 3 July 1988. The American government claimed that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, and that the Vincennes was operating in international waters at the time and feared that it was under attack, which later appeared to be untrue.[48][46]" Iran–Iraq_War#US_military_actions_toward_Iran. See, now it seems as if I were attacking the US, but this is not my intention, my intention is just to show that it should be deleted for being completely unbalanced.

Then you have the Cambodian civil war 1970-1994

From the article List of war crimes: "Cambodian Civil War. Crimes against humanity; Crime of genocide. Khmer Rouge killed many persons due to political affiliation, education, class origin, occupation, and ethnicity. [54][55]" That is true, they did kill MANY. Go to the page Khmer rouge, it says "The Khmer Rouge is remembered mainly for the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million people or 1/5 of the country's total population[2] (estimates range from 850,000 to two million) under its regime, through execution, torture, starvation and forced labor." Strictly speaking I don't know if these are "war crimes" or just "crimes against humanity" of what, but then it seems to be rather subjective to include the 11 September murders, too.

Of course, one could try to improve the article, but neither you will do this, nor I will, nor anybody else did during the last 18 months. And the way, it is now, I think it would be better to be deleted. Tonight I will come back and repropose the deletion of this article. I don't know, if you want to cancel my proposal again, but I beg you to at least read the article List of war crimes before doing so.

Cheers User:KlausN 26 february 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Somebody might improve it; if it has potential that's what we encourage people to do. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)