Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:30, 30 November 2011

For new users

If you are new here, welcome. The page Misplaced Pages:Welcome, newcomers has links to a tutorial, and answers to frequently-asked questions.

Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Salafist jihadism

Based on your using the same source I did, plus your addition of another would you be so kind as to comment on the talk page regarding PassaMethods reverting of this same thing from the article please? The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Primitive Baptist article request

Hello. Would you mind unblocking the Primitive Baptist article so that it can be moved over a redirect to Primitive Baptists, or just make the move yourself? Similar moves at Baptists and Missionary Baptists and Reformed Baptists were made long ago (for more, you can read Talk:Baptists/Archive_5#Change_article_title_to_Baptists.3F). Thank you and happy editing! Novaseminary (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No objection to moving it, but I'm no longer an administrator. You can request unprotection at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. Sorry for any inconvenience, Tom Harrison 12:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Verifiability

Thanks for reverting the erroneous edit I made to WT:V. I've explained on my talk page. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove?

Why did you remove it on AE911Truth? Yes, I know you all have powers to censor and block, no need to link me over to some cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True Skepticism (talk • contribs) 23:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding promotional videos doesn't improve the article. That secondary sources don't mention them is an argument for leaving them out, not for putting them in. Tom Harrison 23:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned in edit-warring noticeboard

In responding to Jordgette's motion on the edit-warring noticeboard I mentioned you and your activities on the 7 World Trade Center article. As a result any admin reviewing Jordgette's motion may take action against you. Sorry.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Building 7 article

Are you going to respond to my comments here and here?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

See my comment at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Tom Harrison 14:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would really like to get some sort of comment from you at the section I created on the talk page concerning that revert you performed during my block. I raised other issues as well concerning some of the material in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You should be aware that reverting due to "no consensus" is never a legitimate reason. You have to actually give a reason for why you don't agree with a change when using the undo function. I started a section on the talk page just for that, though I really don't see how you could possibly have an issue with me splitting a large paragraph into two paragraphs. However, whatever reason you have for opposing the change I would like to know. It also looks like you undid some changes from several days ago that you actually expressed no opposition to so your actions are perplexing. An explanation in either of the sections on the talk page concerning those edits would be nice, or you could just provide an explanation in a new section of the talk page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to work with anyone whose apparent goal is to promote fringe theories and deemphasize the facts.--MONGO 17:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You said there needs to be consensus and for that there needs to be discussion. So I started a section on the talk page for you to explain any concerns you had about the changes you reverted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice for you to give some explanation in the talk page at the section I linked to in my previous comment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw that you commented on the RfC. Would you mind responding to the section right below it and mention what your issues were with the changes you reverted?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

Good suggestion, I don't have a problem talking alot of people seem to. Deleting relevant images and relevant information which is nowhere to be found in the article like height of the towers, the speed of the planes, the floors impacted, etc. makes no rational sense whatsover. Nobody owns any page on Misplaced Pages. Behavior like MONGO's is why people get fed up. 7mike5000 (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Addendum:I did't realize you reverted the page as well. You don't WP:OWN the page either but I don't feel like getting aggravated right now. 7mike5000 (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody owns the page. It's open to everyone, like the talk page. Tom Harrison 12:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are you replying to 2 month old comments on the article talk page? Geometry guy 03:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the discussion closed? Surely we aren't required to use the talk page always and only to discuss conspiracy theories. If you think it would be more convenient, feel free to move it and start a new section. Tom Harrison 03:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course you can add comments to old discussions on article talk if you want to, but the editors you are replying to are unlikely to read them. My question is: why do you want to do this? Geometry guy 03:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Article structure seems to be part of what people say concerns them - the need to go into causes and motivations. If we have a better sense of what articles we have and what they contain, maybe we can come up with a few improvements we can agree on. And I suppose, in the larger scheme, if we can come to agreement on something maybe we can all work together better in the future. Do you not agree? Tom Harrison 03:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope so and suggest you ask Karanacs (to whom you were replying) for her view as well. Geometry guy 03:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)