Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:13, 6 September 2006

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. Tom Harrison 16:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Streetball

Why have you removed the external link to streetball.co.uk?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmac1811 (talk • contribs) .

You mean "Streetball.co.uk - UK based Streetball website, currently the number 1 Streetball site in the world"? I thought it looked more like an attempt to promote the website than contribute to the encyclopedia. Tom Harrison 14:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's the number one search result in google for "Streetball" and is far more popular than the other sites currently mentioned in the article. So surely that merits its inclusion? By the way, I have no direct involvement with the website itself, I just visit it occasionally.Jmac1811 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Tom, I did add nonsense a few days ago. I added a line about Joseph Smith in the opening description, out of sheer curiosity to see if it actually worked. However, my edit of removing Christian Martyrs from the article made very good sense. Joseph Smith cannot be considered a Christian martyr. Mormonism IS considered heresy by every mainstream Christian denomination and this fact is well-established. Additionally, Smith is hard to consider a true "martyr", as he died in a shootout with the federal government. Compare this to the scores of true Christian martyrs who died for their unwavering support of biblical doctrine and their commitment to Jesus Christ, as He is described in the Christian Bible. I'm sorry, Smith doesn't compare. This edit stands.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.53.128.158 (talk • contribs) .

The page Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. is available as a place to discuss changes to the article. If a consensus supports your edit, and it meets our other standards (see welcome above), then it probably will stand. Tom Harrison 16:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Illuminati Summons

User:Mirror Vax vandalism at Template:AfdAnons. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at his entries on that template, and consider a block. Thanks. Morton devonshire 18:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he has been warned. I'll block him briefly if he persists. You have to be quick around here. I need 750 more to level up, and people keep beating me to the block. Thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

ANI

Bro, you have already been on ANI for the template, are you sure you want do to this? --Striver 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy buffs" is a direct quote from the Times article cited. If you think I have done something wrong, take it to ANI if you want to. Tom Harrison 18:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

reverting edit to MAJ12 page to include SOM101

Why have you removed (basically simply reverted my edit) the Special Operations Manual (SOM101) text from Majestic 12 page? That SOM101 document is one of the documents in the "official" http://www.majesticdocuments.com/ site, just like the docs already listed in the Misplaced Pages article...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhatz (talk • contribs) .

The extract you posted is far too long, but most important, majesticdocuments.com is not a reliable source for anything but what its operator thinks. The talk page Talk:Majestic 12 is available as a place to talk about what might be included in the article. Tom Harrison 20:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Polls at 9/11 Truth Movement

I do not want to engage in an edit war about inclusion of these polls, yet Striver insists on placing them in the article rather than build consensus first. Next steps? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed these polls on several different pages. I don't think they are appropriate for this page, and as original research they may not belong anywhere. If there are enough editors following 9/11 Truth Movement, maybe a consensus will emerge in the next few days. If not, maybe a request for comment (just about the page's content, not about user behavior) is in order. Tom Harrison 20:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

GreekWarrior again

I'm not sure if you've seen his latest comment...

time is coming for revenge soon turk, i will avenge my uncle, my hatred of turks is unreal, you would have to experience it for yourself to understand it, i am totally dehumanized to the suffering of turks now, i dont laugh when turks die, because it is only a few when Kurds attack, i am like a 1/8th full glass, only a massacre of turks, a huge massacre, will placate my need for vengence, and even then it will only do it for while, i need to see dead turks, i want to see them die en masse. i hate them so much, i wish every turk in the world died of the most painful cancer imaginable, eating their intestines, god in heaven holds my words to be true or strike me down, i reaffirm again that i dont hate turks, i loathe them, from the pits of my heart, i need blood vengeance for what they did to my family, we are coming turks, get ready.

Can you please do something about this guy? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 00:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the ip for one month. If this happens again, we may need to request checkuser. Tom Harrison 13:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. —Khoikhoi 17:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

I would like to speak to you about your list of questionable links, what makes the links from chabad.org questionable? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just that there are so many of them - four hundred is too many. Some are justified, but I think we are being taken advantage of to promote the organization. Tom Harrison 21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any specific links that you believe to be questionable? As was discussed on WP:AN chabad.org is the largest Jewish website in terms of visitors and one of the top in terms of content. The website that the organization uses to promote itself is lubavitch.com. While chabad.org is the content wing which spreads the message of Judaism. I will be happy to take a look at any specific links that you find questionable and either explain to you why it is there, correct the description, move it to a more appropriate article or if found that it doesn't belong there, to remove it. If you perfer to use email for this you can email me by clicking on the email this user by my userpage. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not read the pages that link, and I have not followed the links. My concern is that there are so many links at all. My interest is not particularly in chabad.org, as you can see from User:Tom harrison/Pages with questionable external links. I searched for links to chabad.org because I knew about the links from AN. No doubt other sites have more links with less justification. (I have not figured out how to get a list of sites with more than 100 links.) Prisonplanet.con and its satellites have over a hundred. More are added as Alex Jones writes the material. User:Striver would probably tell me that each individual link is justified and informative. I think he is misled by his enthusiasm for Jones' work. Tom Harrison 13:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Economy of Paris

Greetings. I noticed your comments on the above article's long-standing revert war this morning, and added some notes of my own that may also be of interest to you - there's more amiss there than what first meets the eye.

Regards, THEPROMENADER 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Just to let you know that I'm impartial in this story. There is no 'right' side in that argument - both sides are ridiculous actually, and neither can be right because both have no references to refer to - both are making fictitious claims. This is not something I can correct, if not to eliminate the chart completely: one cannot compare the inexistent. THEPROMENADER 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I unprotected Steven Jones article...I thiought a week was long enough, but they seem to be editing ferverishly over there again.--MONGO 15:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe it will settle down. The only reason he has a page at all is his 9/11 conspiracy theory; without that he would be a non-notable academic. If that can't be mentioned neutrally, it can't be mentioned at all, and the page needs to go. At the same time, the page is a bio of Jones, not a pov fork to allow an exclusively favorable presentation of his theory under cover of WP:BLP. It looks reasonably balanced and sourced right now. If it stabilizes that way, we won't have to stub the page and start over. Tom Harrison 15:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand why it's necessary to reduce the WTC section. As you say yourself, it's why he is notable.--Peephole 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It all has to balance. If his theory is to be presented at length, criticism of it has to be presented at length. Then the whole business dominates the article. It stops being a biography and becomes yet another pov fork of 9/11 conspiracy theories. So it's not necessary to keep it short in theory, but may be in practice, in order to get a stable page that is legitimately a biography. Tom Harrison 16:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your block of User:Badlydrawnjeff

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I feel your block of Jeff was extremely ill-advised. Civilized discussion is never disruption and without a doubt not block-worthy. If you feel the discussion was "clogging up" ANI or wasn't headed anywhere or was unproductive, fine, advise the participants to move it somewhere else, a user talk page perhaps. But blocking someone because they're arguing a minority viewpoint is in no way constructive and will never solve any problem. --Nscheffey 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

He was being disruptive. He was responding to every single comment and numerous admins made it clear he was being disruptive.--MONGO 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)