I should comment that Nescio has apparently refused any involvement with the Template:War on Terrorism page (he has made no comment on thetalk page) since I protected it. It might or might not be linked to the fact it is his version that happens to be protected. Circeus 14:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Really sorry about this. I should have given the page an actual look before posting it. ­Circeus 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you withdraw that tendentious comment? Look at the bottom of the page abd then repeat this accusation. Second, the current version is certainly not my version.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out, Nescio has now stated after the filing of this RfC that he no longer and never did have a problem with 2005 Bali bombings being included. I am not sure why they were removed then because the information I gave at the bottom of the page is the same information located further up the page, a section he replied to. Template_talk:War_on_Terrorism#Addition This is further proof of what I have had to deal with when this user attempts to "find a concensus", the constantly shifting arguements and views, edits completely contradictory to eachother, and now even stating he never had a problem with it, or removed it because it had no source information, even though its already on the talk page in a section he started. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I removed it in error (and never even said I objected to it), you removed extraordinary rendition and unitary executive to prove a point and because you refuse to accept the sources on those articles as evidence.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You never provided a source, you told me to go read XYZ articles and fine the source myself. The one source you did provide was a 158 page ruling where you again would not provide a page that addressed your concern specifically. You cannot source Wikipedia articles with other wikipedia articles, and tellnig someone your source is a 158 page document and not pointing to a page ... I dont know what to make of that. Furthermore you removed the Bali bombings 2x, 2 seperate times as well, it was not back to back. Also when asked why you removed it, why did you not simply state, it was by accident? Instead your reply to me was

Is there a reason for the memos outlining policy in WOT, the method of transporting terror suspects named extraordinary rendition, the psyop program in Iraq (which you claim is part of WOT), et cetera for being removed?[1]

I asked you again and you replied

No revenge. Simply removing what I disagree with as you refuse to compromise. As you remove everything you dislike I don't see any reason why I can't do the same. Apparently you are thinking that avoiding compromise is being constructive[2]

That does not sound like it was done by accident frankly. You are actually stating you did disagree with it, meaning you are lying here by stating it was an accident, or you were lying ther for some reason after being asked why it was removed. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It sounds like I object to calling it a "main event." I never said it is not part of a larger conflict. But just as London this was not a "main event." If it was, please explain what constitutes a "main event." Which I tried to do on the talk page but instead of addressing that you file this RFC. Hardly constructive.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Odd you said you removed it by accident, now you do object? If you thought it was not a main event, why did you delete it instead of moving it to the related events? How can you have done it by accident and on purpose at the same time? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting it as main event but should have moved it. Very logical to call that a mistake.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quote you above While I removed it in error (and never even said I objected to it), Apparently you didnt have a problem with it, so I do not know why you would move or delete it. I am done chasing your circular arguements around. I think the evidence speaks for itself. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As this RFC is only to prove your point, and in no way is a serious attempt at dispute resolution, which you repeatedly refused to engage in, I withdraw from this debate. Should you be able to attempt serious dispute resolution you can leave a message on my talk page or at the mediation page.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton}

Your constant changing of your reason is proving my point, however the RfC is to address the violations of WP:POINT. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]