User talk:Habap/Archive03 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Habap/Archive03

Your reversion is false. Do not judge w/ factual knowledge as you have done. It causes great distress for me and other casual cs players to see Wiki addicts like you dictate what is said in the Counter Strike Source Article. It's sends the wrong message. This isn't 1.6 may i remind you.

Please explain what you're referring to in that article. My issues have nothing to do with how the game is played. That's like saying you can't make statements about the American Civil War unless you fought in it....

My first issue was that no citation was provided, so we had no way of knowing whether a controversy actually existed or if one idiot just didn't like it. My other issue was that "controversy on Valve's part" makes no sense in written English. I can understand someone using "on Valve's part" in conversation, but it is not proper English.

It makes no difference whether I have played the game or not. If you can't document it, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. This is not the place for original research. Since we now have a citation, I have revised the sloppy sentence to read more properly. --Habap 03:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-You have absoutely no experience with the game therefore you may not speak on the matter. Don't be moron. This is video game not literature.

Please avoid personal attacks. I am not speaking about the game, so my lack of experience is irrelevant. Whether a controversy exists needs to be documented or it doesn't exist. Wikipedia is not a video game, so we must strive to imitate literature. --Habap 14:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Team_NoA

Hey i just added the same kind of code you had as the SK one and uploaded Team NoA's logo. Is that kool? jimbob615

Excellent work! --Habap 00:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sounds good my friend, i'm a noob at this wikipedia shiz so I'll have to ask you how to do it, sorry mate. I have been a long esports follower however and I know pretty much everything related to esports, especially since early 2003, and a fair bit before 2003 as well.

Hello David. Do you have any idea of the ethnic background of John Martin (i.e., German, Anglo, Irish ...) or even what the W stands for? Just someting that has being bugging me. I understand that he died in Columbus, Ohio, in 2005. Cheers!Fergananim 14:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,
Thanks for your message and interest:

Two things to discuss here. First, should strategic vistory be "a success" while tactical victory is simply "success"?

Apologies; I also meant to amend the "tactical victory" description similarly. Have now done so.

Second, it is my opinion that military campaign should be linked...

I reinstated the descriptions of different types of victory to accommodate User:Liu Bei (see the article's recent history and talk page comments). Personally, it's my opinion that this kind of material belongs on a(n interwiki-linked) Wiktionary page, especially considering the refinements you (understandably) suggest. What do you think?

Yours, David Kernow 21:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Defining victory and it's attendant types shouldn't be done in Wikipedia - having the definitions in Wiktionary and the disambiguation pointers in Wikipedia seems best. --Habap 21:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for starting the China Marines article. That was a glaring hole in our USMC coverage that you fixed. Cheers--Looper5920 22:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It was a pleasure. Now, if only I knew more.... --Habap 04:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a Marine for ten years, and have never heard that expression. It is a good one though. If you don't mind I am going to use that. Thanks. Bunns USMC 00:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always glad to help. --Habap 03:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration request involving you has been filed.--AndriyK 19:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry just testing out the + sign at the top of the page, i was just editing before.

testing once more Jimbob615 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Don't do it. [1] Añoranza 02:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the next sentences in that policy: Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 01:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until 6 July, I will be down in the Florida Keys, sailing. No internet! Oh no! Proceed without me.... hehe. --Habap 02:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding. You wrote at the arbitration page that I misrepresented things, falsely claiming others supported me. I had been referring to Kirill Lokshin's comment "unless we're talking about the actual operational plans, talking about the codename rather than the battle isn't really necessary" that indeed supports my opinion. Please remove your comment under evidence to avoid confusion, thank you. Añoranza 00:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I'm quite sure that doesn't really support your opinion. "Not necessary" isn't the same thing as "should be forcibly removed" by any stretch of the imagination. Kirill Lokshin 15:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Habap! Can you believe the nerve of some people? I mean really, telling you how to write your comments in an arbitration against them, totally unbelievable!. Anyway, Have an awesome time while on vacation and we'll see you back on the 6th of July! ← ΣcoPhreek _OIF 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am stunned at his... arrogance. He misrepresented the comments and was called on it by the one misrepresented and now he wants me to deny it also. Odd. --Habap 13:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! I actually inserted that?? I'm guessing I had read the diff the wrong way 'round. I've done that a couple of times before (that I know of...) Weregerbil 15:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was odd. I looked at your history and realized it had to have been a mistake. There's a group of kids from crapyclawn.net that put "feet/birds" into a number of articles and I was bored and thought I'd search on that and found two such edits that had not been reverted. --Habap 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it at first, and granted it's weak. If it had been put in the main text, it'd definitely not fit. As it's in see also, I can live with it as the connection is (read first part of his article) that he was a leader but was booted out and not let back in. As it's such a weak connection, I wouldn't object if anyone took it out either. I keep flipflopping-;). Rlevse 19:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my computer craped out on me.

I wanted to also say that I'm for a don't ask don't tell policy in the BSA and I'm against the ban on Agnostics. 132.241.72.20 20:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. --Habap 21:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what I said to you was a long time ago. You have to admit that you did come across as taking a rather biassed position against the Germans initially. When I made my comments, you did explain your true position, and I did not say anything negative after that. As far as Nixer is concerned, that is a completely different matter. If you look at his user page, you will see what is going on there. Nixer has tried to pick a fight with me a number of times, and I have avoided this. I am not trying to get off side with anyone. However, I feel the introduction is now very poor, and it was improving. I know that you think I am pro-Nazi. But this is not true. My father was badly wounded in WW2 in Libya, losing the sight of one eye, and his only brother, my uncle, was killed also in Libya on my father's birthday. However, my father never had bad feelings towards the Germans. As a prisoner of war, my father had nothing but the highest regard for the Germans, who he said always acted in an honorable and decent manner. Wallie 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks is not a long time. You started by assuming I was not acting in good faith. I have not changed my position. I was not and still am not biased against the German people. I should not have to argue that I am not biased. WP:AGF

Regardless of your prior disagreements with Nixer, you should focus on the ideas rather than the person. It takes two to fight.

In a similar vein, my opinion of your beliefs or those of your father are not relevant. My condolences upon the tragedies the war inflicted upon your family. If your father is still living, thank him for his service to the world for me. --Habap 22:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am concentrating on ideas. If you see what I am saying, I am not accusing anyone, just what they are saying. People are continually calling me out by name. I know I am taking a minority position, however I think it is morally the correct one. I am also quite confident that over time the introduction will improve. I note you switched your support, and you are fully entitled to do that. Wallie 22:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I am now very upset. This splitting of the vote will allow the "old" version to win. Unfortunately, this means that it will also be a permanent fixture, as the supporters will insist that it stays that way, and they have every right to do so. I think it is a traversty, but I have certainly learnt a hard lesson. Wallie 00:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked back through our discussions. I think this all started as Haber jumped in on one our conversions, and I thought it was you. As soon as I realised that you had a serious position, I did not comment further in a negative way on what you were saying. Now it has got to the point I think you are trying very hard to discredit me personally. On the Suez point, I maintain that the Suez article does not really depict this as a defeat for Britain and France. Most readers will pick up on this anyway. Wallie 18:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the confusion over "Haber and Habap" certainly compounded things. Nonetheless, in our initial interaction, you created a section header question whether I was living in a dreamworld. As long as that kind of tactic is behind us, we'll have no problems.

In reference to the Suez Crisis, the article clearly states:

The operation to take the canal was highly successful from a military point of view, but a political disaster due to external forces.

That seems a pretty unequivocal statement that it was a defeat for France and Britain. --Habap 19:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you would be upset over the "dreamworld" statement, and I definitely misread you at that point. It is clear that from that point onward, you considered yourself "at war" with me, and that also meant even siding with my enemies and their viewpoints. I do think there is an anti-German undertone in the article, though. I know that there is a "assume good faith" policy in force. But in the real world not everyone acts in good faith. However, I think the intro is probably a bit better now than that mess I saw, when I first started discussing it. Prior to that, I was working in the rest of the article, and did not really look at the intro. But most readers only read the first paragraph, unfortunately. Wallie 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The governments of the UK, Germany, France and US were all different in WW2. Actually the French had three governments. So in answer to your question, the German government was different than the other three. More extreme? I would think so. But the reverse is true today, in my opinion. I think Blair is more extreme than Merkel, for example. That's history. Wallie 20:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that times were different then. You don't have to concern yourself. If I had been around in Germany at the time, I would have ended up in a concentration camp, as I would be strongly opposed to the Government. However, I do not blame the Germans at the time. We all have to live somewhere, and it is surprising how we all get used to things. Most people also want an easy life, and go along with the authorities, especially when things are going well, which they were for quite a while in Germany. The holocaust of course is dreadful, and I don't understand how this could happen. But again, people get used to things. Look at what happened in Yugoslavia. Did we all rush over and stop it when we saw similar scenes there to the holocaust? No. Because most of us just want to mind our own business.

As for the Japanese. This one is more complicated. I do think that the United States is guilty here too, as its politicians were playing games, by deliberately starving Japan of resources. I doubt that Japan would have presented any problem, if handled differently. Many of their attacks were targeted towards gaining resources. However, there Japanese did build up their military prior. And of course some of their soldiers did do attrocities too, There was definitely a racial undertone with the whole Japanese episode, that was not there against the Germans.

I often feel that this article has been written by people from countries that have never faced defeat, and have little or no empathy for those who have. When you have been defeated, you understand the pain. The bottom line is that war is horrible and should be avoided at all costs. Wallie 23:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I like your puppy, Henry. Wallie 23:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice notes. I tend to agree, but will have to re-read sober. Henry is happy that he is well-liked. --Habap 03:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. We have our own cocker spaniel called Millie. My wife would kill me if she knew I was having any disagreements with Henry's dad. (Don't tell her.) Wallie 20:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Habap. I was reading over our discussions on the WW2 page. It is clear that I was reacting to the overall tone of the article, and some of the comments made by Haber. I then made some comments about you, and you were completely innocent. You must have wondered at the time what the hell I was on about. Things just went on from there, with you getting annoyed with my attitude, and me thinking you were Haber. I can only say I am sorry about this. My only excuse is laziness, as I should read things more carefully in future. After all you did warn me that I might be confusing you with Haber. Wallie 09:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the general contentiousness of the discussions, I can understand how it would have been easy to confuse the two of us and how that would have made you react as you did. I have no hard feelings about the incident, though I do think that we will politely disagree on a number of points. --Habap 13:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarise, Añoranza is banned for one week and the principals in this matter are encouraged to enter into good faith negotiations regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames for which there are neutral alternative names in common use.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching those errors in the Band of Brothers article. I glanced at it, but it did not register. On second look, I realize that the numbers given do not even make sense: he says June 8th is D+6, indicating that D-Day was June 2nd (obviously incorrect), but then also refers to June 12th as D+8, indicating that D-Day was June 4th. He can't even keep the date straight. Thanks again for correcting it. ---Charles 18:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It had bothered me for a few days and I was going to check it on the DVDs. Then I decided that I would at least fix the D-plus part. I don't remember if they give the date or if they show "D+6", in which case, it is referring to June 12th. Either way, someone has to go look. I might have a chance in the next few days. The funny thing about most of the "historical inaccuracies" that get posted here is that they usually aren't inaccuracies, but just a Wikipedians mis-understanding of the movie. On the other hand, if you look at Bando's "Trigger Time" website, you get a far better understanding of things they got wrong. I'd remove the whole section, but am convinced someone would re-create it the next time the series played on HBO, BBC, the History Channel or such (it just ran on the HC the other week, generating much attention for this page). --Habap 20:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you as far as removing the section---it would just come back again, and perhaps even worse the 2nd time around. And, yes, you are correct when you say that most of the "historical inaccuracies" are misunderstandings on the part of viewers, who then turn around and post their thoughts here. I have to admit to some confusion from time to time myself, because there are a lot of characters in that series, a lot going on, and it can be difficult to keep things straight. The scene, for example, after the battle of Foy, when Sgt. Lipton talks to Pincate about Lt. Dike can be confusing if you are not paying close attention. So, I can give people some slack. But, c'mon folks, check your facts. Thanks, again, for your great work. ---Charles 03:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]