93.86.164.168

2003 invasion of Iraq

No I do not think that you have adhered to NPOV policy. Those statements are backed only by citation to a policy group study, not really wp:RS in my opinion. Further placing those statements in the lead of the article lends undue weight to the criticisms, which have their own section in that article anyway. If you want to add something to the criticisms section about Bush's lies, that would be different, and I wouldnt have a problem with it if you write it in a neutral way, or if you want to update the lead with some note about the overall controversy, not just Bush's lies, that would also be ok. However, adding a note about Bush's lies only in the lead both lends undue weight to that particular criticism and diminishes the others. See also wp:LEADBonewah (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

it was not in the lead but in 3rd section (chapter 1.1) of the article[1] when you scroll 4 pages down, so i don't know what you are talking about. also, it's about U.S. administration's lies. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Your right, i just skimmed it and thought that it was in the lead, still, it needs to be in the criticism section, in my opinion, and reworded to be more neutral. When the title of your commentary is "this article is a joke" its hard to put forth that much effort into really checking it. That is why i deleted your comments as well, at a glance it would seem to violate wp:TPNO "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic." On further investigation, your comments arent totally useless, just poorly worded. Bonewah (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

i don't see why you say those facts should be in criticism section. fact that The rationale for invading Iraq as a response to 9/11 has been widely questioned, as there was no cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[36] is there, and fact that administration was giving false statements is not that different, only more strongly worded. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I dont think much of that sentance either, it is not very neutral and is not entirely supported by the citation (the widely questioned part) and it runs counter to what the article says earlier (that the rationale was WMDs). See also wp:OTHERSTUFF Bonewah (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Conspiracy theory. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Verbal chat 06:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Hey guy, you seem not to pay attention to edit summaries. i did quote a reason for removing the word. didn't you see it. look again, maybe your eyes serve you better this time. get back to me when you find it. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing or you will likely be topic banned or blocked. Pursue discussion on the talk page, but please do not hound editors after they have given their view. Verbal chat 07:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

you are hounding me. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from attacking other contributors, as you did with this edit to Talk:Conspiracy theory. Continued personal attacks may lead to being blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

he did lie, so it is not a personal attack. it is a description of his action. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Addition of "See also" links to Operation Northwoods in articles where they are not relevant is disruptive.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, please note that this is not your talk page (as you claimed in this Edit Summary for your edit removing your level 3 warning), this is the talk page for discussing the actions of the IP Address which you happen to be using at present.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, get a life and stop bothering me. My edit summary was a copy/paste of another's editor summary who removed my comment. so look at context next time before threatening and assuming bad faith on other editors. also, there was nothing disruptive about my addition to see also section. read policies again. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

---