| Revision as of 00:31, 9 April 2007 editSalvNaut (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,444 edits →Steorn Edit: we will see. let's not dilute anymore← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:35, 21 September 2021 edit undoPrimeBOT (talk | contribs)Bots2,066,063 editsm →David Ray Griffin: Task 24: removal of a template following a TFDTag: AWB | ||
| (50 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==My talk page== | |||
| {{message}} | {{message}} | ||
| ==Useful links== | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ] <small>(])</small> 01:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Jones' plans == | |||
| {{Archive box| | |||
| Hi. I started responding on the Jones talk page but my response doesn't really have anything to do with the article so... | |||
| <center>], ], ]</center> | |||
| }} | |||
| I think the most interesting paper Jones could write (though it may require him to bone up on some engineering) would be one that challenges Bazant's energy calculations, i.e., his confident claim that the potential energy of the tops of the towers was at least an order of magnitude greater than what the lower portion was able to support. Though I'm not qualified to assess his calculations, Bazant seems to ignore the core columns, and does most of his modeling in two dimensions (a cross section of the building's structure.) A paper like that (directly responding to Bazant's) could/should be published in ''Structural Engineering ASCE'' (where Bazant's is forthcoming). Actually, I think the fact that such a paper has been published is a little embarrassing for CT'ers in precisely the way Mongo normally suggests. However, it would not surprise me if political concerns factor into the editorial decisions of engineering journals (as is well known in other scientific disciplines). | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Anyway, what a strange experience Misplaced Pages is! Thanks for being there.--] 13:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Oooops. I meant "the fact that such a paper has NOT been published..."--] 15:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692039973 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2017 election voter message == | |||
| == 9/11 split AfD == | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, SalvNaut. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| I think you may misunderstand me. I am wholly infavour of splitting this article. I am simply not in favour of making a monumental cockup. If we retain the currently split article there is the huge danger of retaining a genuine POV fork that was created in error. I believe that we have to delete the currently debated article, and then resplit, '''boldly''' and '''correctly'''. Done properly thuis will create a far better set of articles. ] 11:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I understand that you are wholly infavour of splitting. I just don't feel a such strong need to follow the protocols. The situation seems clear to me - the split has to be done, most people agree about it, arguments of the other side are not strong enough (they keep repeating POV fork argument). I understand though, that the other side may think differently :). I belive that admins and ppl with experience will do the right thing. There is a quite long and fruitful discussion about splitting on ]. Please join and express your thoughts. --] 12:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| :Huh? :) Finally I understood what is wrong here - your username is Timtrent and you keep using FiddleFaddle nickname :) heh, that's really misleading when you look on the watchlist. No problem though - I can live with that :) --] 12:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::(I created the id, then created the nickname. I was surprised the way the wiki software handled it, but by the time I'd worked it out I had written and signed a lot of messages etc, so too late to change it. Its valid, but cionfusing. Many others have a nickname as well as a user ID.) I see another editor has been bold and made what may well be the correct split. Good for him. It's not protocol I want to follow blindly. It's just that this has got so far "incorrectly" that I fear (feafed?) we would throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm hopeful that it will now be resolved well. ] 20:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Gladio == | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/08&oldid=813407029 --> | |||
| ==David Ray Griffin== | |||
| Hi, I noticed your interest in Gladio, I thought you might be interested in this also: a friend of mine in Le Monde Diplo interviewed Dr. Ganser on Gladio and 9.11 . ] 13:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. Thank you. ] (]) 01:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
| :Hi, thank you for this - very interesting, it's good that people around the world start to take a close look. One thought: | |||
| :a citation about WTC7: "But then several professors building safety, to whom I presented this claim here in Switzerland, said it was not possible. It was just a small fire - it could not bring down this big building as fast as 7 seconds." | |||
| :I think that those professors should be interviewed, they even should write an academic paper about it (is WTC7 design scheme available to look into?). --] 13:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I believe there is some information on the FEMA and NIST websites, but as they haven't completed the final report yet, I think everything isn't there (it may never be). There is a professor of fire safety in either the University of Glasgow or Edinburg that has attempted to recreate the WTC fires. He has published a number of interesting papers on the subject, but he does not claim that the fires didn't knock down the towers, simply that it is not known how they did. ] 20:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Please contribute to Straw Poll == | |||
| Hi, we are having a straw poll in order to save the "9/11 Conspiracies" page from generalized disorganization. Could you please help us out by casting your vote ]? Thanks --] 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Please observe the ] before trying to edit again on the ] article...thanks.--] 10:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your concern, but I'd prefer you to discuss your reverts on the discussion ]. | |||
| ::the matter was discussed on the one article, you then take it to a subarticle and start pushing this stuff there, the exact same nonsense.--] 19:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I wanted to invite you to join a new WikiProject I have started called Association of 9/11 All Sides Editors. The main goal will be to patrol the 9/11 articles in an organized manner to help stop the abuse of the delete process which, judging by some of your comments in recent 9-11 related AfD pages, you are quite familiar with. I dug into the histories of some of the people on there trying real hard to push the deletion through and I see that it is part of a larger, organized attempt to get rid of everything other than the articles that they agree with on the topic. Not surprisingly, one of them proposed my project for deletion within a couple hours of creation. If you want to learn more about the idea, please see ]. --] 11:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Controlled demolition AfD request == | |||
| Hi, an admin recommended I ask someone else to make note of this, per by ]. Would you be willing per that advice to post that/draw attention to the fact of the previous AfD and the people involved? It seems that this article was AfD'd again immediately after the last ended. I suspect that MONGO will become incensed if I do it myself, as we both and got blocked over this from edit warring. I'm asking 1-2 other editors as well. I am asking you as you've participated in the AfD, and Joshua recommended I do this. Thanks. · ] · 04:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Uh,oh... hi... I've been absent for a while, and I am gone withing few moments. I hope the case has been resolved - is ''Clarification'' by Thomas Basboll enough? Anyway, I whish you (and all of us) a lot of patience, peacfulness and persistance when interacting with Mongo. Cheers! ] 14:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == if you could keep me apprised? == | |||
| I created a special page for my own use at ]. If you should happen to see any AfDs, MfDs, etc., that you think I should know about, please feel free to update this page to notify me--it works for me as an include to both my User and Talk page, so I will see it. I unfortunately don't always have time to look at the whole listings of those sections, or keep up. This will help a lot. Also, if you want, feel free to help yourself to using it as well on your own page. I added instructions for the curious in case they don't know fancy wikicode. Feel free to let anyone else know about my page and it's function--I don't mind more people knowing about, so that I can be aware. · ] · 06:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == users who accuse == | |||
| I was also tempted to leave a message requesting the cessation of accusations. I wonder if it might work better if we all handle the points made in detail, but ignore anything that accuses. Different people interact in different ways. That's fine. But if we react back we may develop a war rather than an article. If it becomes really difficult we can take a different view :) ] 20:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Your dignity and patience surprise me as always. :) You are right, of course. My opinion is that one has to "bite back" sometimes - maybe this was not the case. I have no intention to engage in any war. I'll do my best. ] 20:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I suppose I am old enough and ugly enough to ignore pretty much anything :) I tend to take a view that, deprived of oxygen, a fire will go out by itself. I can have my buttons pressed, but it takes a lot. If you want to see real patience, have a look at my talk page archives for discussions with a user Yy-bo. Eventually I was assertive, but it took a while :) A less amusing one was one I had to take to mediation. Display infinite patience and state a case simply. But only back down when in error, and then do it swiftly and with humility. I have no idea whether this was the right time to bite back or note. I just feel we must not get distracted or another AfD will overtake the article. ] 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Sorry, You've lost me == | |||
| Your edit history note: "nothing important) FiddleFaddle: I'd prefer you to copy it instead of divide so the overall meaning of the first comment stays the same :)" I didn't know I'd split aything! Care to enlighten me? please? :) | |||
| :Oh, I am so sorry. It wasn't you. My comment has been split and new section has been created and it changed a bit the overall meaning of my comment. As it turns out, Thomas did it. Instead of looking at the page history I took the first person (you) that replied to Mmx1 to be the splitter. Again, I'm sorry for my innacuarcy and rash.] 20:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not to worry. I guess it's natural since I seem to be acting as sheepdog on a few admin things anyway :) I was just lost and wanted to make sure I hadn't done something silly ] 21:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Do you know what tag to use for the collapse image? == | |||
| Hi Salvnut, | |||
| I wrote back to Aman Zafar with the proper format this time, specifying the page it would be used on, etc., and he again agreed to allow the use of his pictures (he said "as long as I'm not responsible," and even noted the images are now improved resolution on his site). I just don't know what tag to use! I can do all the rest of it. Do you know? It's the image with one tower standing and the other collapsing. ] 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmmm, actually I've never done it but I've checked ] and I guess that ] license would be ok. Does Aman Zafar recognizes the fact that he is about to release his picture for wide use under some license? If I were to release a picture on Misplaced Pages it would be "Fair use" license and from what you've written it seems that Aman Zafar would agree, too. If you think this is the case you can use one of those tags ]. | |||
| :Oh! I've just read on ]: | |||
| :''Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Misplaced Pages can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious.'' | |||
| :So maybe it's wiser to ask Aman if he prefers to release his image on one of the ]? ] 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :<nowiki>{{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|restrictions}}</nowiki> could be appropriate if Aman wants to have a link to his page under the picture. ] 22:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Steorn "Facts" == | |||
| Saying that the ad costs £75k is (a) speculation (can you cite how much standard Economist rates are?) and (b) in any case implies, which I don't understand anyone has substantiated, that Steorn actually paid exactly that much. | |||
| If this is an Economist Prank, which no-one has refuted, Steorn may not have paid anything. | |||
| Until you can provide some notable evidence for the assumption, not a "fact" at all. ] 21:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Out of the blue, you show up at another editor's talkpage to launch a personal attack.... Surely, you know the ] regarding this, but if you don't, please read up on it. Thanks.--] 13:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :"Wikipedians engaging in debate is an essential part of the culture of Misplaced Pages." The debate was ongoing and already missed the topic, one of the comments struck me, I've decided to comment. Personally, I've found criticism towards me very instructive in the past and it allowed me to have a broader look on myself. That's said I of course adhere to the policy and no real excuse for me here. ] 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Um, there's no excuse for comments such as this one either.--] 10:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}| as you did at ]}}, you will be ] for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. <!-- Template:Npa3 --> | |||
| --] 20:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I adjusted the comment a bit. I'm sorry, my words surely could've been read as offensive. ] 00:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfC== | |||
| I have opened a request for comment at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment removed=== | |||
| I removed your comments as you are not permitted to create dis-endoresement sections on an RfC, please use the talk page if you would like to offer a rebuttal to something. Thank you. --]<s>]</s> 16:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| I blocked you and ] for violating ] on ] for 24 hours. Thanks ] ] 02:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == September 11th attacks == | |||
| I may be blocked now. If you could help maintain the template it's a <nowiki>{{NPOV}}</nowiki> template that's added to the top of the page. Thanks. --] 18:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Then they will block me to... There is more of them. We need more editors to fight them this way. Other way I think could be putting up RfC to draw "the community eye" to this case. Article is biased for sure. It repeats myths about 9/11 without proper perspective. ] 18:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Organization - that's what is needed here. ] 18:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Demand retraction of comment immediately == | |||
| Tbeatty mentioned ] and you then stated "Be careful with razors, you can cut something important."...next time I see you suggesting bodily harm, I will block you <s>indefinitely</s>. You best remove that comment...now.--] 12:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Mongo! For crying out loud ''(and by using the phrase "crying out loud" I do not intend to imply that I will make you cry out loud)'' This accusation is insane ''(and by insane I do not mean to suggest a threat to dunk you in the Parisian river)''. You really need to take yourself less seriously ''(and by "take yourself" I imply no threat of theft)'' SalvNaut's comment was clearly a joke and suggesting otherwise is clearly disingenuous. I suggest you immediately retract your threat to block SalvNaut. ... al ] bin ] ''<small>(])</small>'' 14:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Staring blindly, with astonishment, I keep wondering - is it a rare, beautiful example, the artistic manifestation of Mongo's sophisticated sense of humour? Suddenly, I blink and visions fall apart. Was it real, or merely a phantom? What is the ulterior sense to all? ] 14:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Retract the comment you mentioned or I will block you...not sure how long at this point. That artricle is a hotbed, so any allusion, no matter how vague, of personal injury has to given zero tolerance. No one is threatening you...you are being told how to act...either act civiliy, or find yourself blocked.--] 15:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There was no allusion of personal injury, vague or otherwise. Mongo, I suggest you go for a walk or something and calm down - you're just making a fool of yourself. --] 16:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks, for reassuring me that I still can see where up and down is (I suspected my English language imperfections for a while). ] 16:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem, SalvNaut. Just to note, I opened an on Mongo's threats to block, and Mongo has just warned Tango too ... al ] bin ] ''<small>(])</small>'' 17:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Retracting my comment about a block. I urge you to not make allusions which may be percieved as threats of personal harm. Thanks.--] 17:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Mongo, you were the only one to percieve it as you did. I urge you not to read between the lines in such manner. Thanks. ] 19:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == arbitration == | |||
| I have opened a case of arbitration at --] 08:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == FYI == | |||
| have you seen this discussion at ]? | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hello, | |||
| An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 23:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: ] == | |||
| I can see the block is a bit controversial, but I'm still leaning toward declining his request. He is welcome to ask for a second opinion via {{]}}, of course. You might post to ] about it, if you like, but it looks like there's already an arbitration case opened that's at least partially regarding this whole thing, and it's hard to get much more attention than that. Your call if you'd like to post it there. ] 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your response. I reacted mainly because there is the arbitration case opened. And many of those involved in this arbcom edit Operation Gladio article. Seabhcan does a good job there, provides sources, discusses. He might have lost his nerves once or twice but if you take a close look at the arbcom, you will see that this was not without reason. And there are editors like NuclearUmpf, who do not share his views but have no problem with coediting with him. Seabhcan is away for about a week. If you be so kind, and find it appropriate to repost on Seabhcan's page your opinion presented here, that you find this block controversial. (so it's not used as an argument in his present arbcom) ] 00:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Permission to edit and add too== | |||
| You have my permission to edit and add too ] as you see fit. ] (]) 15:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == User notice: temporary 3RR block == | |||
| <div style="background-color: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid red; padding: 3px;"> | |||
| I made only 3 reverts. First edit was not a revert, I left a source and a sentence which Weregerbil has added. I did not violate 3rr rule, I discussed my edits. I feel it is unjustified block. ] 19:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Still looks like 4R to me. But you can try <nowiki>{{unblock|why}}</nowiki> if you feel hard done by. Don't go around editing as anon, though ] 20:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| ==Regarding reversions made on ] ] to ]== | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] | |||
| You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the ]. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.</div><!-- Template:3RR5 --> The duration of the is 24 hours. ] 19:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)</div> | |||
| <<unblock|1= I was blocked for allegedly breaking 3rr rule. I didn't do it. Here is the history of my 5 edits today: firstly, I introduced new sentence and a source, then after ] made an edit, I made another edit in which I changed some of his words and removed a source. And here "fun" begins. (only 3 more edits to go). I was reverted by Tbeatty with a summary:''"rv - the inlcuded material is germane, factual, sourced andrelatively small."''. I restored my wording and left source and sentence introduced by Wergerbil (trying to reach consensus) (and a quick fix after). | |||
| Then, I was reverted by AudeVivere with summary:"rv, should be included". This could indicate that he didn't even bother to look on my edit because the only source he could have in mind was already there.(I left it in the article - never removed). I "revert" and start to write a discussion on the talk page. Before I manged to post it, came Cberlet and reverted my edit (he is the first one with a meaningful summary - good for him). I disagreed and made a revert . The last one is the only "real" revert, in my opinion, as it was directly connected with disagreement with other editors (not to their mistakes as the second one, the first one of those 3 was a try to reach consensus). And even if you count all reverts, you'll find that there are only 3 of them. Then, I started to discuss with Weregerbil on the talk page. Then came Tom harrison and made a revert of me, but I didn't even managed to consider what to do, when I was blocked. This is unjustified block. Please reconsider my situation. Thanks. ] 23:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)>> | |||
| :Block not reviewed -- already expired. Apologies for the delay. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Directed Energy Weapons == | |||
| Regarding you unwarranted rv of the Star Wars Beam Weapon on Steven Jones discussion page: | |||
| If you're actually studying Mathematics and Computer Science, you should know something about "looking at information", and that's what I'd advise you to do. | |||
| Also, if you're a Jones supporter I recommend you check these links: | |||
| Google this: Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate? A peer-review of Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research | |||
| ] 05:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I am a student. So after studying links that you have posted my opinion is: I do not find this evidence convincing. More: I find it flawed and disinformation look-alike. It's a slander at a person. ] 17:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please explain how you believe it is flawed. (btw, you could not have gone through all that material in such a short amount of time.) ] 11:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Myron Evans == | |||
| Assertions that appear on Evans' website are unverifiable and therefore inappropriate as references on a biographical stub. His blog at present dismisses all mainstream physics journals. Evans' books are self-published vanity publications. If you wish to make a scientific point, please open up a thread on the discussion page for the Myron Evans wikipedia entry. --] 00:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I find it unreasonable to name AIAS site a blog, that's it. And yes, of course, mainstream physics and Evans are not too fond of each other. What do you mean by "dismisses all mainstream physics journals."? Have he explicitly stated so? ] 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Atomic precision is a mostly non-functional mirror of www.aias.us. Please explain why you have added this and allowed the references to Bruhn and 't Hooft to be removed. By the way, if you read Evans' blog, you will see that Evans does indeed dismiss all mainstream physics journals. Kindly do your homework before editing this biographical stub. ] 00:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've found atomic precision to be a better organized site. I don't know what is the rationale for including Bruhn's site. Maybe some link to a journal refutting Evans can be provided? Anyway, I should have reverted the link, it should stay. For those interested, who know Riemannian and Cartan geometry better than me, it should be clear if Bruhn is correct or not. ] 03:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. | |||
| This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. | |||
| For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped. For misuse of his administrative tools, as well as disruptive conduct in edit warring and incivility, Seabhcan is desysopped. Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours. All blocks to be logged at ]. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee --] 08:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == 911 Conspiracy Theories/Alternative Theories == | |||
| Why dont we focus on identifying individual points of objection at ] instead of having long winded debates that cover 2 or 3 subjects The we we know everyones objections either way, we can work out a compromise on each point with a view to reaching a consensus. "] | ]" 09:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Straw Poll: External timeline in 911 attacks article== | |||
| Since you have been involved with the 911 attacks article in the past, you might be interested in voting in a straw poll on an external timeline currently used in the article. . Thanks. ] 18:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Please assent or dissent to mediation in the 911 external timeline link matter. Thanks. ] 17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Well, AfD was inevitable == | |||
| And I am sure that, should the controlled demolition hypothesis article survive this one there will be more and more and more. It seems a shame that people seem to confuse the hypothesis itself with an article which documents that the hypothesis exists and states what that hypothesis is. Peer Review was always likely to trigger an AfD, but writing any article is a risk when it covers a political hot potato. Misplaced Pages's strength is its weakness: it allows ordinary people to edit. In general good sense prevails, but this process does rather interrupt the flow and reduce motivation. ] 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :"Build up your weaknesses until they become your strong points.". Misplaced Pages is on a good way here, I hope. People (editors) learn faster than newcomers arrive, so the overall quality keeps getting better and better. Will it last forever? (if so Misplaced Pages might gain conciousness like ] did :) ] 02:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==9/11 at Politics.Wikia.Com== | |||
| I thought you might be interested to see . | |||
| == Steorn Edit== | |||
| Steorn and Legal Problems <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 23:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| Was working on the references when you chose to step in. | |||
| Please realize that people spread across time zones are involved. | |||
| The moment i get one substantive reference, I will revert that page | |||
| A1 | |||
| :If you provide a good reference, I'll look into it for sure. The leaked name might eventually find its place in the article but only when supported with a good, reliable, source. Otherwise it would be a gossip only, so no place for such in the article. The article about Steorn has suffered much, and still is suffering, from unsustained, speculative information in it. It's not good to add any more of that. A typical reader faced with too many facts he cannot verify won't assign any meaning to them at all. ] 00:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:35, 21 September 2021
| Please leave a new message. |
 Archives |
|
|
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 Misplaced Pages 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) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, SalvNaut. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
David Ray Griffin
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)