Talk:Jeffrey Chessani

OIF

The LtCol is a member of the US military. The official name for operations in Iraq is Operation Iraqi Freedom whether it is propaganda or not is irrelevant as it is the official name of the operation.--Looper5920 11:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should present things in a neutral way. Propaganda terms are not helpful for that purpose. Añoranza 15:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda or not it is the official name of the operation. I realize you don't like it and I wish it had a sexier name but that is what it is called.--Looper5920 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That is what the US military calls it. No need to do so, too. You would not use Nazi propaganda terms for their operations either. Añoranza 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see where this is going as it only took you 2 posts before the Nazis were invoked. When in doubt it is always good to invoke them. I have a general rule of thumb not to argue with anyone that brings them up in a discussion. Your Anti Americanism is so virulent you cannot even think straight. Did I miss something or is there a rule somewhere that states if something was named by the US military it is unencyclopedic?--Looper5920 22:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is no personal attacks. The Nazis are a good example as they brought propaganda to a new level. Añoranza 23:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy against using Operation names, Wiki admins have already stated this. Stop your mass editing attempts to remove the term Operation Iraqi Freedom from Wikipedia. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy against using operation names, but there is a policy to use the most widely used, neutral and understandable terms. Just cause and Iraqi freedom are neither widely used, nor neutral, nor understandable for most readers. Stop your mass reverting. Añoranza 23:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You do not speak for most voters, if you want to establish concensus, hold a vote. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In cases that obvious I am bold. Añoranza 23:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Being bold is good, however its already been stated by two people its inappropriate in this case, so its obvious a vote should be taken if you feel the need to continue, being bold does not mean disregarding others. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I disregard others when they come along with an example that has been refuted many times like you with the cold war as an excuse for propaganda terms. As you will remember, after I started a vote in another case the losers claimed that wikipedia is no democracy and they were right anyways. Añoranza 23:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I am going to change all operation/war names to the established names on their respective pages. Personally I still don't agree with this because this is about a member of the military who served in specific military operations, and should hence be referred to as such. But if you still have a problem with these naming conventions, please consult the appropriate articles for discussion. Joshdboz 23:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable in my eyes. I however would like to point out that propaganda terms are not more acceptable in articles about members of the military than anywhere else. Añoranza 23:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You are creating inconsistencies in articles and redundancy in your edits are not even aware of it. Before editing an article read it first please. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny coming from someone who even reverts corrected typos. [1] Añoranza 00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Commands

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about Wikipedia than I could add, under "Commands," 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines, K Company. I served under him there, in 1997, when he was a Company Commander, with the commission of Captain. Thanks! 98.192.21.67 01:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Recreational User Dave

sourcing

The More Center, which defended him, can be used as a source for their opinion on the case, but can not be used as an opinion for the facts, which must be taken from reliable published news sources. Some of the references therefore need replacement. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeffrey Chessani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122100124.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928023942/http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/ChessaniBOIAugust2009.pdf to http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/ChessaniBOIAugust2009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)