| Revision as of 02:42, 18 January 2011 editLoremaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers55,220 edits →NWO← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:00, 2 August 2011 edit undoMystichumwipe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,132 edits →9/11 conspiracy theories: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
| Can I help you? --] (]) 02:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC) | Can I help you? --] (]) 02:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == 9/11 conspiracy theories == | |||
| Hi | |||
| I see you raised similar thoughts to mine on this article some time back. | |||
| I agree with what you wrote and see that others have made the same observation over time, but to no avail. | |||
| I don't know if this is OK to do (contacting like-minded individuals to reach a consensus on a contentious article) or if you are still interested? But if it is OK, I wonder if I could ask for your involvement on the discussion page under '''Article neutrality and accuracy - the introduction''' ]----] (]) 16:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:00, 2 August 2011
|
Possibly unfree Image:0657501.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:0657501.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Undiscussed Edit
I've reverted your recent edits. You cannot make a major to both the Conspiracy theory and Conspiracism article without discussing it first on the talk pages of these artciles. --Loremaster (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- As you can see from the edit http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Conspiracism&oldid=363484748 It is superior in its placement of content, completely removing the conspiracism section of the conspiracy_theory article and moving key points of that section to corresponding sub-sections of the main article(criticism, paranoia, ect...) Due to the my lack of experience in the Misplaced Pages community, I request you look at my changes and support me in this edit. Zzzmidnight (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Although I will take the time this weekend to review your edits to determine what is and isn't worth keeping, it doesn't change the fact that you should discuss substantial changes the talk page of article before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and in order to build a consensus for them to avoid a dispute. That being said, since you admit to lacking experience, I suggest you read the Misplaced Pages:No original research, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability policy pages before editing any article. --Loremaster (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Zzzmidnight (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Name Change
My user name has been changed, from Zzzmidnight Rolyatleahcim (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
User Page and Acknowledgment
Thank you Loremaster for the creation of my user-page and acknowledging my ability to communicate effectively (Its brought smiles). Rolyatleahcim (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Seeking Wiki-Mentor
If an established editor would be so kind as to take me under their wing and assist me in developing my capacity as a WP editor, it would be much appreciated. Rolyatleahcim (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Greetings Rolyatleahcim, I see you're up for adoption, and I'm in the market. Apparently you've been on Misplaced Pages for several years but aren't especially active in the main namespace. Forge ahead, and if ever you need advice or answers, just ask me -- any question, any time. It would be especially nice to see linguistics articles improved, because many of those are hard for the average reader to comprehend, and I'm interested in the area as well. I'd like to help however I can. Happy editing - Draeco (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
NWO
Please read my comment in entirety.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Since I watch over the New World Order (conspiracy theory) talk page, you don't need to tell me on my personal talk page that I should read your comments on the NWO(CT) talk page. --Loremaster (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Yo?
Can I help you? --Loremaster (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
9/11 conspiracy theories
Hi I see you raised similar thoughts to mine on this article some time back. I agree with what you wrote and see that others have made the same observation over time, but to no avail. I don't know if this is OK to do (contacting like-minded individuals to reach a consensus on a contentious article) or if you are still interested? But if it is OK, I wonder if I could ask for your involvement on the discussion page under Article neutrality and accuracy - the introduction ]----Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)