User talk:Precis

Joe I 22:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re doug feith i know i am outnumbered as far as truth getting out. So you guys delete, and I put it back in. There"ll be a window of time when the truth appears. "who are these officials?" read the discussion pages or douglas feith condoleeza rice and john wilkerson, secy state colin polwell's chief of staff Former National Security Advisor Condeleezza RiceThen-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said, "Thanks Doug, but when we want the Israeli position we'll invite the ambassador." Regarding Feith and his colleague, David Wurmser, Colonel Wilkerson has stated "A lot of these guys, including Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying members of the Likud party, as I did with Feith. You wouldn’t open their wallet and find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel’s interest than our own. When asked to characterize Feith's role in US government, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson replied "Was he nefarious? Absolutely." Colonel Wilkerson "believes that Feith placed Likud's interests above America's during his service at the Pentagon." [1] Dead link [2] Take CAre! --will314159

there was a compromise language w/ reference to doug feith article. the complaint was this was a article about cole not feith. i've often had it in there that Wilkerso and rice corrobrate cole. it always gets deleted. so i've shortened the language to ease the typing. I think i'll put it on a clipboad with the quotes and as soon as i learn how to foonote stick it back in. take care! --will314159

"rv: it pains me to remove this gem, but there is no choice: orders have been handed down by the Israel Lobby)" With regard to above, anytime you feel under automaton behavior, out of body experience, or just need some help, call 911, if its available to you. Take Care! 15:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm contacting you to ask that you take a look at the conduct RfC brought against me by TDC (talk · contribs). I'm contacting you because the RfC involves some pages that you have edited on in the past. Although you and I have not really agreed on anything, I have found your edits and comments fair and level-headed, so I value whatever contribution you may make to the RfC page, if you are so inclined. Thanks.--csloat 07:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - extremely helpful. You can paste it here under "outside view". Thank you!--csloat 15:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are making Wikipedia links to dates, months, etc. I wanted to check if you were aware of [3] Precis 06:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe I am reasonably familiar with that policy. Are you familiar with

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day? Personally, I wish we had a mechanism for users' date style preferences that was unrelated to linking, but we don't. As you can see, the MoS is pretty clear on this being an exception to the usual rule about relevance. - Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Truth to tell, I don't have strong feelings on this. I found, however, that when I went the other way on this, someone inevitably came in behind me and marked up the dates (even dates of access to a cited web page), citing the MoS, and I figured I'd save them the effort. - Jmabel | Talk 18:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your edit on overlinking. Again, I'd love to see a better approach on the date preferences thing. As an American who has spent a lot of time in Europe, neither "June 20" nor "20 June" grates on me (I use both pretty interchangeably), but I understand how one or the other simply looks "wrong" to some people. - Jmabel | Talk 00:11, 21 June 2006

(UTC)

You have been reported for vandalism on the juan cole page. SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&action=edit&section=177 Take Care! --Will^(talk) 14:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precis, I actually do think you are very funny, but IMHO, I think it would be better to cut back on teasing Will. I remain Panglossianly optimistic that everyone on the Juan Cole pages can just get along, sooner or later . . . Thanks, TheronJ 20:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered VANDALISM to delete a section. Do it again and I will have you blocked. —The preceding

I haven't agreed with everything you've said, but I really appreciate your good faith efforts to analyze potential sources and relevant policies, and to find a solution everyone can agree to. Thanks! If Will and Arthur agree to your latest suggested text, I think we'll be in good shape. Karen | Talk | contribs 09:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

will you pl elobrate this.Yousaf465 what was left on 10% page.Yousaf465

You are smart. And seem to be honest. Might we work together? Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 14:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your intellect; your comments are sheer brilliance. Thought I'll tell you. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's enough, you two :) Precis (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, once upon a time I probably would add paraphrasing to that essay without a blink of the eye. However, my purpose in keeping that essay in my userspace is not to argue for any opinion, but to provide a viewable copy of what that essay looked like, once upon a time, before some well-meaning types rewrote it into something I don't necessarily agree with any more. Since that is a valid exception to the general guideline of not synthesizing material, you may want to add that to the essay in Wikipedia space. Good luck. -- llywrch (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the suggestion. Precis (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. "I get by with a little help from my friends." I'd meant to delete some text and forgot.   Will Beback  talk  07:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Precis. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]