ScierGuy

As far as a first WP article goes, Sequence theory is a pleasure to read. Keep up the good work! --Fire Star 06:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush Doctrine

Is it possible to get the Bush doctrine article opening line fixed? "The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe the foreign policy doctrine of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks."

This opening sentence is problematic

1) Because it attempts to explain this particular doctrine(s) by saying it's a doctrine. I suggest using the words "position or policy" since these synonyms can help readers who might now know what a doctrine is to better understand the term. It's fairly basic not to explain a term by repeating the term itself. It's redundant.

2) According to the definition I find for doctrine, it is a single principle, policy or position. So I don't see how there is a "Bush Doctrine" let alone a single foreign policy doctrine for the USA. It should really read Bush Doctrines, and I believe that's at the core of the confusion. I defy anyone to substantiate an argument that there is a single doctrine dealing with Bush's foregin policy approaches and methodology. But I guess rectifying this confusion by making the article title plural is way above my paygrade. At the very least the opening line should be corrected to say the Bush Doctrine refers to US Foregin policy DOCTRINES not doctrine.

I suggest revising the opening line to: The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe the foreign policy positions and approaches of United States during the George W. Bush presidential administration.

Then perhaps something along the lines of: These positions have been enunciated in various speeches and papers and have been analysed extensively in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq.

I included similar information on the Bush Doctrine discussion page. (Wallamoose (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

The Bush Doctrine is a doctrine that reflects a collection of decisions and strategies from the foundation of a belief system such as an ideology. It is therefore NOT correct to state it as a principle. Furthermore, there were revisions to the Bush Doctrine, and the September 11, 2001 attacks were part of forming these decisions and strategies - in practical political terms. A doctrine is something stronger than a mere policy, a single position or a principle. Therefore I disagree on your interpretation, but I think that merely or singularly attributing the attacks is not representative of the actual Bush Doctrine. Therefore I agree it can be improved. We can discuss this further on Talk:Bush Doctrine. Open a section, or discuss it further, on the Talk page and I will support a change. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and refrain from commenting on what I could've done, or whether or not you need to make anything acceptable to *ME*, as if I'm somehow impeding you.[1] We both have the same mission, to improve the article. thanks and regards, --guyzero | talk 18:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see my talkpage for my reply to your note. [2] --guyzero | talk 19:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Any edits I've made are always open for discussion and are detailed on the article talkpage or in the edit summaries. If you have an issue with a particular edit, then please address it specifically rather than making generalizations. Please stop making claims like "systematic bias"[3], "rampant deletions", "help that is sometimes given"[4] with regards to my contributions. Your implicit judgments into my motivations for editing are offensive and do not promote harmonious editing at all. --guyzero | talk 21:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alex Gourevitch

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Alex Gourevitch, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Dmwiki (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

The recent edit you made to Bush Doctrine constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Superflewis (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it vandalism to include a full sentence when it was being misrepresented as different - i.e a misquoting...? See the paper in effect, where the full sentence is fully viewable on page 98. Scierguy (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi ScierGuy, after more in depth investigation, you're absolutely right. I apologize for falsely accusing you of vandalising the article. I reverted the edits whilst using HUGGLE - which only shows the last 2 revisions. The new content looked dubiously anti-semitic, and I simply inferred that it was 'vandalism'. I now see the mistake I've made.

Also, I'm not sure that this can be used as a reliable source as it looks alot more like a fringe theory. - I support removing the entire phrase in question

“ Scholar Kevin B. MacDonald called neoconservatism "an awesome display of Jewish power and influence." ”

Not only is this an egregrious generalization, I agree it is to an extent Anti-Semitic.

I've also found that this article makes outlandish statement such as that that 'Zionism supported Hitler' (pg 39) as well as stating to an extent that "Aliyah is illegal"

Once again, I fully acknowledge my error, and will attempt to edit with more caution in the future --Superflewis (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

JavaScript RegExp problem

I noticed you have experience in JavaScript. I'm hoping you can help me with a problem I've run into writing a userscript.

Please see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject JavaScript#Nested RegExp.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 12:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)