User talk:WilyD/Archives/2006/July

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

As a quicker way of PROposing an article for Deletion (hence PROD), you can stick a tag on the page as follows. {{subst:prod|Add reasons here, and mention

You can also check the speedy deletion criteria at

Hey, saw that comment also. You might want to read

Wikipedia:Introduction to Deletion Process to get an overview of the whole thing. PROD is a good timesaver, but if you're new, it may be worth developing a sense of what deletions are controversial before starting to use it a lot. Cheers! Mangojuice^talk

03:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Kudos for keeping your cool on the The Invasion of the Tribbles deletion page. I laughed out loud when I read your response to that IP. Geedubber 01:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for giving a wonderful alternative name for the NPOV policy. (-: Anville 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The other ones had ZPORT and HPORT--D-Boy 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

From what you know, was Quebec considered one of the "American Colonies" between 1763 and 1776? If not, then perhaps the origin of the regular use of the term "American" is when the American Colonists dumped the term "Colonist" after the Declaration of Independence.

Also, if you have time, take a look at the Royal Royal Proclamation of 1763 which provided for the incorporation of Quebec and Florida as British possessions after the French and Indian War. It refers three times to the "Continent of North America" but also uses the term "America" by itself. Uses of the latter are somewhat ambiguous but in each case seem (to me) to read as "the parts of North America that were already British, before the war". One could argue, I suppose, that "America" is used in an interchangeable way with "North America" but I seriously doubt that there are linguistic accidents in legal documents of this importance. Thanks- Sumergocognito 10:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that your comment on the AfD page for The terrorists have won was 1) brilliant, 2) overdue, and 3) hysterical. Good work. Tcatts 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In reply to

Thanks, that would be much appreciated! --Stephane Charette 20:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I think the list is beginning to shape up now. -- Avenue 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, WilyD. I see that you replaced the image of Gretzky in the The Greatest Canadian article with a fair use image. I don't know if you noticed in the article history, but Thivierr recently replaced a previous Gretzky image in that photo montage with a non-fair use image, on the basis that: "fair use replaced with free - note: fair use images should *never* appear in galleries like this". I seem to recall having seen a wikipolicy at some point to that effect, but of course I cannot find the policy now. You may want to contact Thivierr to discuss the issue. --Skeezix1000 19:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, I'm not convinced it isn't fair use, but I double-checked and Wikipedia does have a public licence image of Gretzky, so I swapped it for that. When I cam across the article, the image was busted, which is why I changed it. WilyD 21:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, both the Cherry and Gretzky images (which are otherwise identical in usage) are licensed as fair use promotional materials - so I'm not clear on the overall point. WilyD 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Who knows. I just wanted to let you know about a recent edit summary. I have now found the policy reference I referred to earlier, which says: "Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo montage, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis)". It's up to you to decide if you agree with Thivierr's interpretation or not. --Skeezix1000 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Thivierr didn't go after the Don Cherry image because its fair use source information was added after Thivierr made his edit to The Greatest Canadian (according to the article history). --Skeezix1000 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw your comments and edit to

Thanks for your comments WilyD. There appears to be consensus on what is State terrorism on the originating page. The following introduction at the top of the State terrorism page defines what is and what is not state terrorism.

State terrorism is a controversial term (see:State terrorism. Confines and definition), which means violence against civilians perpetrated by a national government or proxy state. Whether a particular act is described as "terrorism" may depend on whether the International community considers the action justified or necessary, or whether the described act is carried out as part of an armed conflict. It has to be mentioned, that the opinion of the , so called, International community cannot be defined and determined with proper neutrality. State terrorism, where applicable, may be directed toward the population or infrastructure of the state in question or towards the population of other states. Although attacks on non-combatant civilians may occur during a time of war, they are usually considered terrorism, especially if these are not attacks on the enemy's war fighting capacity (for example an industrial port). The terrorism may be carried out by the state's own forces, such as an army, police, state supported militias, or other organisations, where it is more usually called state-sponsored terrorism.Care should be taken to differentiate state terrorism from acts of violence carried out by government agents which are not specified by government policy. A murder carried out by a policeman, for example, is not considered state terrorism unless the government sanctioned the action.

As you can see , it is generally agreed that state terrorism must involve a policy of government sanctioned violence.So even low level organised incidents such as My Lai massacre and Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse would qualify as state violence or war crimes (acts of violence carried out by government agents which are not specified by government policy) but not as state terrorism. As Colin Powell said , these things (civilian killings) occur in war. Every army of every nation throughout history has committed war crimes against civilians. It wouldn't be fair to say the actions of a few deranged people in its security forces constitute state terrorism. However I dont deny Black July appears to have been organised by the Sri Lanka government at the time. It has its own separate page however.Ruchiraw 15:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Shall I add an introduction saying that the user should see the state terrorism page to form his own judgement as to what constitutes state terrorism. The main page users appear to be in consensus but the State terrorism in Sri Lanka page users are not. Ruchiraw 15:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your hard work in

I have peeled off another very volatile one. See

State terrorism by United States of America. Thanks RaveenS

Good evening. There have been some new facts and evidence presented in the discussion since your last edit. When you have a minute, would you mind taking the time to revisit the discussion? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)