Talk:Zarqawi PSYOP program/Archive 1

message: Iraq is designated to be part of the larger War on Terror. This program is aimed at fighting the war in Iraq and at US audiences to secure their support for this war by inflating the concept of terrorism. This clearly is a broader campaign in the WOT. Second, if Iraq is part of WOT is is difficult to understand how a major campaign in Iraq is not part of WOT. Or as one article states:
:Without Zarqawi and bin Laden, the "war on terrorism" would loose its raison d'être.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats from an editorial. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore the article itself states the program was directed at influencing the Iraqi Insurgents, not the greater WOT. Do you propose we add all 100+ operations that have taken place inside Iraq as well as all 20+ insurgent groups and their leaders? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The aricle itself states that it was also aimed at the US, with the intend to gather support for WOT. You have not answered the quote, that without this program there would be no WOT.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the full explanation via quoting the next line of the text directly. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your actions are completely uncalled for. They were done in numerous edits you could have addressed them individually. I will place them back tomorrow since you did not place an arguement against any of them. Furthermore if you read the article fully the program is mentioned earlier the quote actually is in the header. Seeing as you only have one arguement against the edits its further shameful that you reverted all of them. Next time address them individually. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read the edits if you have an issue with one, then bring it up, removing 10+ edits with a sweeping revert without even stating an objection to any of them is frowned upon. Furthermore I am not sure why you would have removed the backstory on Zarqawi, you remove information from a major publication to support information from an editorial in a lesser known and verifiable source ... --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Part of the War on Terror

message: There is 761 words in the article, not including "picture descriptions", "see also" links and "section titles", of those 761 words 254 of them are quotes. Of those 254 words of quotes, 103 of them are from an editorial on a website from Michel Chossudovsky, an economist, so not an expert in this field. If you counted the words introducing the quotes, you end up with 488 words out of 761 more then half the article is either quotes or introductions to quotes, and 1/4, or 25% of those are from a non expert in the field. This seriously shows why this is a candidate for a merge, its lacks content. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Context

message: I'm inclined to delete Chossudovsky's piece as not consistent with WP:RS.  (1) It's self-published, or close to it; (2) The Centre for Research on Globalization appears strongly NPOV on this issue, and if it applied any kind of fact-checking or editing to that piece, I don't see it; (3) it's an editorial, not a news piece; and (4) it appears to rely entirely on a combination of quotations from mainstream news articles already in this article and Chossudovsky's personal opinions; and (5) Chossufovsky's expertise is economics, not whatever it is that piece is about. 
What does everyone think?  If people disagree I'm open to most dispute resolution procedures.  Thanks, TheronJ 14:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of your basis, particularly 2, 3 and 4. I do not know if its self-published however, or the procedure for articles to be put on that site to make a comment on your first point however. I think at the very least we should try not to quote him directly as this isnt his field of expertise. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nomen, like I said, I'm open to most dispute resolution procedures on whether the Chossudovsky piece meets the criteria of WP:RS.  Would you be interested in working together to write up an RFC?  TheronJ 02:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem with that. I will make an attempt below. Later when we agree on the wording we can file the RFC. But, could you also explain why the quotes I provided are not applicable? In other words, policy allows opinion and biased sources, so I really do not understand what exactly your objections are.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Nomen.  It will probably take me a day or two to write something up.  In general, my thoughts are (1) as I understand WP:RS, it's a balancing test on the close calls - for example, the guideline doesn't say that all NPOV sources get in or get thrown out, but that the fact that a source is NPOV is one thing on the scale; (2) in this case, I think that my 5 items above combine to make the source not RS.  TheronJ 09:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove  

message: You are now admitting in the article you keep trying to revert to that the two items are not linked, stop putting it in then. I know you are trying to find content for this article, but a lack of content is just that, adding unrelated items does not help it avoid the merger discussion. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Information Operations Roadmap

message: The following needs to be proven before being introduced, it needs to be proven through a reliable verifiable source:
* Informations Operations Roadmap - A source needs to be provided stating this program is included in that roadmap. Its a violation of WP:OR for us to draw that conclusion
* Zarqawi backstory - The backstory needs to stop being reverted, you are constantly removing information that is factually correct and sourced, in hopes of stating Zarqawi was a nobody. Your source is an editorial and you have not contended the information I added as wrong. Your source also goes against the other articles on Zarqawi.
* Michel Chossudovsky - This person should not be quoted, especially 4 times in an article as he has no expertise in the field at all, not even experience. He is an economist.
* Smith-Mundt Act - Please provide proof that shows this program violates this law or stop adding it back. You have not shown a single source linking even the mention of Smith-Mundt to the PSYOP program, not even proof it violates it.
Please address these issues before reverting. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you plan to lookup and include a paragraph on every PSYOP related document and law? If so let me know I will help you gather the sources, if not the inclusion of just one law, one you have no linked to any source, and one document that you have not linked to any source is OR. Again find sources linking these objects or stop adding them, your refusal to prove they are linked in a manner other then OR will be noted in the RFAr when you get around to posting it, also your lack of edit summaries where the WAPO link change got lost.--zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Before reverting

message: Apparently mediation does not result in improvement of the harrasment I endure, nor does it induce Zero to respond to my arguments, other than repeating his assertions. Since I am at my wits end I have filed a case at ArbCom. This is to notify others should they wish to comment there.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfAr involving Zero

message: *While there has been marked improvement on the proportion of quotes to subject matter, how about removing the quotes completely and leaving it up to the reader to go into the article and read exactly what the person said. It might clean up the article some.
*Why is the Rise to Power section included? This article is about the program, not Zarqawi and as such his rise to power is not important for the article. Just provide a link to Zarqawi's article and call it good.
--Bobblehead 22:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comment. Some quotes might remain, I am trying to remove as much as possible, but when people claim my summary of the info is incorrect I insert a quote so they cannot deny the accuracy. As to his rise to power, I think some mention of the effect the program had on that is warranted. Let me know what your thoughts are. Sincerely Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, excellent points. Perhaps instead of adding a line break for the quotes just put them in "quotes"? Block quotes should really only be used for quotes that are a paragraph in length.  As for the rise in power, perhaps moving it after the description of the program and maybe even merge it with the existing effects section? Have a section for Effects of program and then a couple of sub-sections for Effects in Iraq and Effects in US. --Bobblehead 23:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, nice suggestion, Will think on that but I will start with the move.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 23:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed Global Research sources as they are self published, non notable author, not an expert in the field and fails WP:RS for those reasons. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Nescio, I'm not sure where you are from, but in the United States, there is a distinction, which is well-understood by readers, of the difference between editorials and news reporting.  Please re-draft the article to make this clear -- you have done some of this, but you are still mixing editorial works with news reporting.  For example, Blumenthal's piece is not a straight article -- it's an opinion piece.  Please also remove all blogs from the piece -- it's very annoying to see them again when me and other editors have repeatedly asked you to remove them -- their use violates Wikipedia policy.  Morton devonshire 19:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CounterPunch and GlobalResearch are both blogs.  Morton devonshire 01:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide sources that substantiates that assertion? Second, I have several articles by notable commentators (i.e. John Dean), are you saying we cannot use those simply because the articles were on the Counterpunch site? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of keeping things amicable I removed Global Research. Still think it is not prohibited, but to fight over a minor part of the article is indeed silly. Hope you agree with what I have done si far.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 21:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Global Research is ran by the person you keep attempting to quote, therefore its self published his work. This has been exlained to you already numerous times by myself and even TheronJ above. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When talking about rendering facts you are right, but this is an editorial.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 21:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Its almost humerous you do not mind 70% of the article being opinions and quotes. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you use circular logic, you insert numerous superfluous quotes and then complain about the quotes. Disruptive IMHO.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again complete avoidance of the issue, good bye nescio. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am going to start a RfC on the marge proposal unless this article gets some actual content, something more then quotes and links drawn by WP:OR violations. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you start contributing instead of deleting, we might be able to actually improve this arrticle.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job not addressing issues, next time try not using snide comments. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorialism vs. News Reporting

message: Aside from the RS debate, which I am still willing to continue, there are several edits by Zero I do mot understand. 
The WaPo article says
#The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.
#included leaflets, radio and television broadcasts, Internet postings and at least one leak to an American journalist.
#One briefing slide about U.S. "strategic communications" in Iraq, prepared for Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, describes the "home audience" as one of six major targets of the American side of the war. That slide, created by Casey's subordinates, does not specifically state that U.S. citizens were being targeted by the effort, but other sections of the briefings indicate that there were direct military efforts to use the U.S. media to affect views of the war.
#But this officer said that the Zarqawi campaign "probably raised his profile in the American press's view."
#Kimmitt said, "There was clearly an information campaign to raise the public awareness of who Zarqawi was, primarily for the Iraqi audience but also with the international audience."
#A goal of the campaign was to drive a wedge into the insurgency by emphasizing Zarqawi's terrorist acts and foreign origin, said officers familiar with the program.
My rendition of the article says
#The program was allegedly primarily aimed at, but not limited to, the "Iraqi and Arab media" along with the "U.S. Home Audience," which was part of a "broader propaganda campaign."
#One of the presented goals was to alienate local citizens from him by portraying him as a foreigner and key actor in the insurgency.
#Discusses "Effect of US PSYOP on domestic audiences" 
You object, since the article says that the US public is not targeted and therefore this is irrelevant. The WaPo does not say US citizens are not subject to the campaign. Despite the fact WaPo speaks of "a goal," you change it into the goal. When I was young the words a and the stood for seperate things.
Salon says
#Months before Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike, American military commanders and intelligence officers in Iraq battled Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the White House to "degrade" the terrorist's dramatically inflated image, while Rumsfeld and the White House resisted, ultimately for "domestic political reasons," as a military source involved in this internal controversy told me. In the end, the military lost. 
My version
#However, Sidney Blumenthal reported that, according to a "military source," this campaign ultimately revolved around "domestic political reasons."
#According to Sidney Blumenthal, in an article for Salon, a military source told him that, for ultimately "domestic political reasons," Donald Rumsfeld and the White House resisted degrading the dramatically inflated image of Zarqawi.
You remove my rendition claiming it is incorrect.
Newsweek says
#Ironically the most competent "Al Qaeda" leader in recent years, at least since the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2003, was Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, who came close to subverting the American project and creating a sectarian war in Iraq. But he did that largely on his own, facilitated by the fortuitous conjoining of Iraq with the war on terror. Before the Iraq war Zarqawi was a nobody, hiding out in northern Iraq, largely unconnected to Saddam's regime even though Colin Powell, in his infamous Feb. 5, 2003, United Nations Security Council speech, claimed that Saddam had given Zarqawi "harbor." And he was not part of bin Laden's group. Would he have attacked U.S. interests at some point, somewhere? Almost certainly. But the Iraq invasion gave Zarqawi a chance to blossom on his own as a jihadi. 
My rendition
#Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was already involved in terrorism yet largely unconnected to Saddam Hussein, and not part of bin Laden's group,
which I later changed into
#According to articles in Counterpunch and Newsweek several incidents turned Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from an unknown and unimportant terrorist into the well-known voice of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Newsweek continues by commenting that initially he was largely unconnected to Saddam Hussein, and not part of bin Laden's group.
You delete this.
Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice red herring. Apparently you ignore the numerous articles that are not editorials.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You are missing the point. Prior to the speech by Colin Powell he was absolutely unimportant. Even your own sources do not claim he was terrorist number one prior to that. Thjat is exactly what this article currently says.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have inserted two terrorism experts that concur that befor the invasion his activities were limited to Jordan, and he was certainly not known on the global scale of today. In other wods, like most local nuisances he was a nobody in the eyes of the world.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussing edits

message: Please settle the differences on the talk page instead of edit warring.
It might help to start an WP:RFC or apply for a mediation. Please let me know when the article is ready to be unprotected abakharev 23:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe me when I say that an Rfc will be fruitless.  Instead, it would be helpful if you will monitor this article and insist that Wikipedia editing policies are followed.  We could use the help of a disinterested Admin here.  Morton devonshire 23:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: The following is taken directly from WP:NOR -- this is one of the policies that is frequently violated in this article.
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. 
An example from a Wikipedia article (note that the article is about Jones, not about plagiarism in general):
Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism in Jones's Flower-Arranging: The Real Story by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, saying he is guilty only of good scholarly practice because he gave citations for the references he had learned about in the other book.
So far, so good. Now comes the new synthesis of published material:
If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
This entire paragraph is original research, because it is the editor's own synthesis of published material serving to advance his definition and opinion of plagiarism and whether Jones committed it. The editor is citing good sources about best practice (Chicago Manual of Style and Harvard's student writing manual). In an article about plagiarism, some of the points he makes might be acceptable, so long as he provided links or citations to the sources.
But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion.
For this paragraph to be acceptable in the article about Jones, the editor would have to find a reliable source who had commented on the Smith and Jones dispute and who had himself made the point that: "If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style..." and so on. That is, that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morton devonshire (talk • contribs) 17:59, July 22, 2006 (UTC).
:And this refers to? Everything is sourced. Remains the backstory to PSYOP in general. Nowhere is implied the Zarqawi program is illegal. Only the general principle of campaigns aimed at US citizens is discussed. Since it is reported they may be targeted, and it is a PSYOP program, it is perfectly reasonable to advance some background information on PSYOP in general in relation to US citizens. In other words, I fail to understand your point.
:Regarding OR. Take this analogy. An article states 1 a dog has four legs, 2 a dog is an animal, 3 animals with four legs are quadrupeds. Your position is that we are not allowed to mention that dogs are quadrupeds since the article does not say that. You are correct that the article does not say that, but your objection is silly and disingenuous. OR refers to interpreting something while other possibilities are present, i.e. introducing bias. However, no interpretation is possible as there can be no other conclusion and therefore it is not OR in this example, since no bias is possible. You must have noticed the difference between, Bush did so and so, therefore he is behind 9-11 (where that conclusion is based on interpretation and as such OR), and this example. To object to calling a dog a quadruped is ridiculuous.
:Other example:
:*Group A = All citizens of the world.
:*Group B = All citizens of Paris.
:You object to saying group B is part of group A, since that is OR. My position is that there is no way on earth that group B is NOT part of group A. That is not interpretation, or OR as you call it, those are the laws of nature. Unless you can prove that there is some way group B is not part of group A (showing my conclusion is open to debate, i.e. OR) I think my conclusion is not OR but merely implementing the laws of mathematics (which support my position).Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point you are missing is you are not allowed to draw conclusions. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

message: Before reading the reasons for the proposed merger I reccomend to editors to please read the article in question in full. Thank you.
The following article is being proposed to be merged into Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The arguements for the merger are listed below:
#Currently the article contains over 50% quotes and introductions to quotes. 
#The article contains an entire section based on original research "Effect of US PSYOP on domestic audiences" 
#The section "Rise to power" is a mess of contradiction, stating he was unknown, then unknown outside of Jordan, then stating he was linked to al-Qaeda then stating he wasnt.
#The entire article is written like a news article, not an encyclopedia article. The phrase "X writing for Y stated B said Z" is used consistently horribly inflating word count and size.
#The above quoting style is not actually quoting the person correctly, Z is not a direct quote though its states they "said Z". Its selective paraphrasing.
#The article contains too many references of "Publication 1, Publication 2 and Publication 3 all stated". Again boosting word count in appropriately
There is a lack of content in this article and it greatly relies on quoting, or rewriting an exact quote. It contains original research by attempting to link the Smith-Mundt Act and Informations Operations Roadmap, which none of the sourced articles state is linked to this program. The inclusion of such items is a violation of WP:OR as the user does not know if this program would be applicable to this situation, or if that document (Information operations Roadmap) would contain information on this program.
Assumptions made that create OR for inclusion of Smith-Mundt Act:
#The program does in fact target americans in an illegal fashion.
:No where is it illegality even discussed.
#The information was prepared for foreign audience and purposely diseminated in the US.
:The selective leak to Dexter was not information prepared for abroad, and the Arab media was not prepared for US audiences.
Assumptions made that create OR for inclusion of Information Operations Roadmap:
#The Zarqawi PSYOPS program is covered under this document.
:No where in any source is it stated this document covers the program in question.
#This document is still the most recent in effect document.
:This is simply something we will not be able to determine.
Currently if you removed a majority of the quotes or elongated statements of "Person X in newsletter Y stated person Z said J" and other such elaborate quoting methods, not much content is left in the article. The section "Rise to Power" is a criticism that constantly contradicts itself. I recently tried to insert backstory from news stories and timelines however it was removed in favor of using editorials. Furthermore as pointed out the section "Effect of US PSYOP on domestic audiences" is complete violation of WP:OR as noted above. Removal of the offending content leaves this article as not much more then a stub and collection of quotes. I ask for that reason that the content be merged into the Zarqawi article where its most appropriate. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly reccomend people read the article as well, but I am sure the editors on the wiki are not uneducated as you seem to assume. They surely will research before voting. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Usually want to give a couple of weeks, not everyone is as dilligent as us in checking in on Wikipedia. --Bobblehead 15:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of weeks sounds a bit extensive. I guess another 5 days should be more then enough however. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just came over from AFD, actually, 1 more day.;) The merger page doesn't have a time frame, but AFD says a minimum of 5 days. If it's okay to delete in 5 days, should be okay to merge in 5 days, right? --Bobblehead 15:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense, so tomorrow it is. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but how does the unprotect get released?  Who does the merger?  Morton devonshire 01:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps asking the admin that protected it would be a good place to start. --Bobblehead 04:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We merge it ourselves then turn this into a redirect. I will work on it today. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done.  Morton devonshire 17:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger RfC

message: #--zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes to merge

message: #No merge, the program is reported by WaPo, a more than reputable source. A small part is added material consisting of opninion on the program, which is allowed. To give background info on PSYOP in general is allowed. And even without that paragraph the article has enough substance. Nowhere does the article speculate unless a source does so. Nowhere does the article contradicdt itself when read carefully.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No to merge

message: Comment: I urge participants to first read the article and read the sources, since the list above is groosly incorrect and is highly misleading. Do form your own opinion and do not follow the severely flawed arguments above.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly reccomend people read the article as well, but I am sure the editors on the wiki are not uneducated as you seem to assume. They surely will research before voting. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Usually want to give a couple of weeks, not everyone is as dilligent as us in checking in on Wikipedia. --Bobblehead 15:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of weeks sounds a bit extensive. I guess another 5 days should be more then enough however. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just came over from AFD, actually, 1 more day.;) The merger page doesn't have a time frame, but AFD says a minimum of 5 days. If it's okay to delete in 5 days, should be okay to merge in 5 days, right? --Bobblehead 15:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense, so tomorrow it is. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but how does the unprotect get released?  Who does the merger?  Morton devonshire 01:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps asking the admin that protected it would be a good place to start. --Bobblehead 04:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: There's consensus to merge this article, and one lone wolfstar in favor of not merging (who has mysteriously gone mute) -- what are we waiting for?  How do we get it merged?  Morton devonshire 05:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We merge it ourselves then turn this into a redirect. I will work on it today. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done.  Morton devonshire 17:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's get on with it