User talk:Galloisian

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 17:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me. It would be nice if my neutral contributions were not reversed by people trying to force their opinions onto casual readers -- Galliosian 15:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Greetings. I am here on behalf of User:Rama in regards to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article. He feels that some of your edits are not conforming to a neutral point-of-view, as they generally seem to promote the idea that the invasion is considered legal and widely supported throughout the rest of the world. Specifically, he has referenced an edit where you moved a link about opposition to the war to the bottom of the page [1]. Hopefully we can all come to some sort of agreement about the article and not continue to edit back and forth. As for myself, I have no prior interest in the article at all, and I'm here only at Rama's request, as he is not a native English speaker and was afraid he may say something he did not wish to. Aequo 16:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My edits do conform to a neutral point of view, I am correcting entries that are not NPOV. For example saying "there was opposition from many" is a weasel remark as there was also 'support from many'. The article on Government positions on Iraq is NPOV but the reference to it is not, the reference to it should be either deleted, moved down to the section that specifically deals with support and opposition, or be changed as I have done on a number of occasions to indicate that there was support AS WELL AS opposition to the invasion. -- Galliosian 21:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. I certainly agree that being as precise as possible is the best way to be. I fear that on this particular matter, I might have mistaken your intentions (very much like for [2] which was probably only a manipulation error, I think). With people rightfully feeling that the support of the invasion had to be mentioned, and others rightfully feeling that putting the support and opposition on the same foot is not accurate, things can deadlock easily, even though everybody is of good faith and good intentions. To this respect, I hope that my version [3] avoids both problems.

Oh, also, my appologies for asking Aequo to intercede for me, I just felt that given the past misunderstandings on my part, I would be better to minise the riscs of upsetting you by mistake. No offence intended.

Thanks for your edits and interest in the project, and happy continuation ! Rama 00:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)