Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:42, 13 February 2015

Archive 1

State Bar of California

Hello! It's nice that you're a college student and not an employee at the California State Bar. Are you planning on becoming one? If so, I'd like to ask that you be a professional while you are there, many Californians depend on competent assistance from the Bar. That appears to be lacking at times. Did you know that there are foreigners working there now? Perhaps "foreigners" isn't the right term, but non-native Americans may be.

That is nice, but in order to have a fair and impartial review by that entity, it helps to have one who is familiar with national and state difficulties, difficulties that a non-native might not only be unfamiliar with, but entirely oblivious of. Protocols of the law, of course, but the nuances are to be known, also, or a grave error may be made.

Good luck!--2602:306:3600:95B0:84C8:C95A:DF69:9063 (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are a sock of 2.17's many accounts then please stay away from my talk page, I have dealt with enough of them over the last few months. - SantiLak (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No idea what "sock" means, but I wonder how many items you attribute to this person that you've "dealt" with? If you wanted to enumerate them, I might be able to tell you if they're mine or not. But, honestly, your notation of being a "high school student" rather than a State Bar employee is meaningless. Warning someone off your talk page isn't the mark of one who has interest in the law, rather it's only casting meaningless threats into the wind and hoping they'll land on someone deserving of them. In America, that's not how it's done. You are from America?--2602:306:3600:95B0:70D0:923A:6133:56C0 (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

On a note so you are aware, Misplaced Pages is a worldwide project, not just an American project. Also a sock is a user who is the same person as an earlier user but just uses a different account or IP. My notation is not meaningless because it is true and that user with their pattern of harassment, anti-semitism, ridiculous accusations, and personal attacks on other users, it was important to make clear that I was not what they were accusing me of. I only got involved with the article when I saw that user's change on Hatnote. - SantiLak (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Afghan conflict re-name

Need your help here Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests. I made a request for the move and laid out that a majority agrees after a lengthy discussion and based on sources but an editor has come up to oppose the re-naming. EkoGraf (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The administrator denied the move and requests an official RM. We need to vote now. EkoGraf (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, i'll participate in that. - SantiLak (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast made a new request to change back the name of the article within a day after an administrator renamed it based on the established consensus. As far as I know per WP policy you need to wait a month after a discussion ends before starting a new one, otherwise its viewed as disruptive. And he additionally wants to merge the 2015 article you created into the 2001 one. EkoGraf (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I have associated myself with RCLC's views, as I believe that the 2001-onwards phase of the conflict is better described as an American-led war rather than strictly a NATO involvement, which actually started only formally in August 2003. I would prefer that we consider the situation when the U.S. special forces (which details I've added a bit to the new article) leave, possibly in December this year. My views are set out in detail on the talk page of the 01-14 phase article. I hope this explains at least why I'm opposing the article you did the job of creating, and it is, as always, something that can be settled through discussion. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that I only created this article because their was consensus on the talk page for it. I saw that and decided that if it was going to happen I should at least try and make it reasonably good for how small it would be. In the earlier argument, I argued what is still my position, which is that even if we rename it, it is still the same war, just the Afghans are leading now, there wasn't some massive change in the war that made it separate and ISAF wouldn't constitute such a change. Despite my opinion I am going to remain neutral in the discussion because I really would be ok with either outcomes. - SantiLak (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Gun violence in the United States

Talking to myself gets boring. Use the talk page before doing another knee jerk Twinkle revert. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Another thing to do before mindlessly reverting is to read Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control. The topic's covered by discretionary sanctions so stupid editing has consequences. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Another editor reverted your edits with good reason. - SantiLak (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand. You think reverting good faith edits without discussing them or even reading the article is the right way to edit. You could have surprised me by saying what the good reason for the reverts was. Maybe you think it's more fun to keep everyone guessing. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You should follow BRD, there was no consensus for your changes so discuss it on the talk page instead of edit warring. - SantiLak (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC}

Don't lecture me on BRD when you're the one reverting without discussion. I'm on the talk page and you're not. You're the one who is edit warring and who won't give any reason for your edits. Felsic (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually should because you removed content without consensus and continued without discussion until today when you began discussing again. You also started a bunch of procedural moves such as the GA review that are just really based on you not getting your way. Your editing patterns are also clearly based on a POV that you hold and want to insert into the article. Also I am aware of the discretionary sanctions so no need to harass me by posting them as I haven't violated them at all, you should probably take a look though. - SantiLak (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

1986 United States bombing

What makes you believe that it was the victory of the US? Last stable version had no results about the victory or defeat. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I based it on the US achieving its objectives, defeating Libyan counter-attacks, and suffering very low losses. - SantiLak (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Was not even a war, but a conflict that was really uncalled for. Although other conflicts like Gulf of Sidra incident (1989) had some obvious results. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well whether it was uncalled for is not really for us to discuss as this isn't a forum for discussion but the stated goals by the US were to retaliate against Libya for their involvement in the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing by attacking their military, intelligence, and government sites and reduce Libya's military, intelligence, and government capacity. They did succeed in that. - SantiLak (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement said that it condemned the "dastardly, blatant and unprovoked act of aggression". What you would call it? It was raised in UN. By a vote of 79 in favor to 28 against with 33 abstentions, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 41/38 which "condemns the military attack perpetrated against the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on April 15, 1986, which constitutes a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law". Check international response. Since none of the available sources claim any victory or defeat, parameter should be blanked. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, not a forum, just saying. - SantiLak (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible Adoption?

Hi! Hope all's well.

I have recently (officially) joined Misplaced Pages, and I believe we share many similar interests (international affairs, terrorism, military history). I would really appreciate an "adoption," which I believe would go a very long way towards helping me become an effective and successful member of the Wiki community. In particular, learning the nuances of editing, creating an article and various Wiki protocols would be tremendously helpful and invaluable for me as a new user. I look forward to learning from you.

Thanks,

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be glad to "adopt" you, welcome to Misplaced Pages! -SantiLak (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I don't want to sound too demanding, but what good places would you recommend for me to start at?

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)