Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:37, 19 January 2007

Your edit to Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

Your recent edit to Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Misplaced Pages articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 20:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, who are you? I wasn't vandalizing any pages. I was trying to get a crappy article deleted. If I did something wrong, how do I get an article deleted?--Beguiled 20:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that particular article, although nonsense, is notable nonsense, so should not be deleted by Misplaced Pages standards. If you want it deleted, try following the WP:AfD process, but I don't think it will happen. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a really complicated manner to have to follow if all I want to do is delete that article. It doesn't look like you want to delete it, so is there someone else that can help me get rid of it and the 9/11 conspiracy theory article too? If we can't delete this kind of crap, then what are we supposed to do?--Beguiled 21:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Words like crap are unhelpful. Please learn more about building a consensus for your actions with large articles like the ones you object to. Please also read and understand Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies before rushing around and causing upset.

You are perfectly entitled to correct factual errors provided your corections are properly sourced and cited. What you are not entitled to do is to upset people by your well intentioned actions.

If you feel strongly about any article 's continued existence then please nominate it correctly for deletion. Note that this article has been so much enhanced since it survived the past deletion nominations that it is about to be submitted for peer review for the opinion of a much wider pool of experienced editors. Fiddle Faddle 01:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Adressing things from a different angle, your initial complaint above is against AntiVandalBot. AntiVandalBot is a bot. It's a software program that watches for edits that are normally vandalism, and reverses them. But, because it's a bot, it does not have the human ability to make judegemnt calls in those few cases where an edit follows patterns normally used by vandals, but is not actually vandalism. Blanking of articles is one of those situations. 99% or more of the time that a page is blanked, it is vandalism. The remaining few are generally cases like yours where someone legitimately beleives certain material should not be on the project, but is unaware of the proper ways to go about getting things removed.

This is a known limitation of the bot, but overall it's a limitation that has been decided to live with, as the good that the bot does preventing vandalism far outweighs the bad of the small number of false positives. - TexasAndroid 15:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Other usernames

Do you edit Misplaced Pages under other usernames? Moscatanix 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't. Do you? I have actually used one other name a long time ago, but can't remember the password.--Beguiled 22:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to tell us that username? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 06:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not since I was using my real name.--Beguiled 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Could I ask you to tone down you speech a little?

I'm all for passion and straight talking, but remember that wikipedia is a work of collaboration. Try not to insult people's work if you can help it. Cheers Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. But you have to understand that a lot of this stuff makes Misplaced Pages look like it is being written by "(blank)". How can this be? What is an editor to do to get rid of this stuff?--Beguiled 22:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking - you edit the articles to improve them . Actions speak louder than words here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand and as far as I am concerned, my attempt to give the collapse of the world trade center article a correct title was an improvement. It is a conspiracy theory, afterall.--Beguiled 22:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is stated very clearly in your words; "as far as I am concerned, my attempt to give the collapse of the world trade center article a correct title was an improvement". This is a community. It does not work on "I", it works on "we". We reach consensus. We also encourage, under the right circumstances, any editor to be bold and make edits. Please exercise restraint in editing large or controversial articles and build consensus before making sweeping edits. Fiddle Faddle 22:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

See Template:AfD in 3 steps. Give it a try if you want. Everything is reversible, so don't worry about messing anything up. I have to tell you, there is probably not going to be a consensus to delete 9/11 conspiracy theories. They are thought to be notable as a social phenomenon, like black helicopters - examples of Extraordinary Popular Delusions. Tom Harrison 23:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You can see and comment on pages currently nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 2. Tom Harrison 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be interested only in 9/11 conspiracy articles

It would be beneficial for you to read about single purpose accounts, not because there is any inherent reason not to have a single purpose, but because it gives good advice for ensuring that your bona fides are represented well to the community as a whole. While is is incumbent on us all to assume good faith, especially with newer editors, it is advisable to make one's early edits uncontroversial until one has learned one's way around in order to demonstrate that good faith is well placed. Arriving and labelling two major articles as crap and asking how to delete each one is an unusual behaviour.

If you need assistance with understanding wikipedia, place {{helpme}} on this page with your request for assistance. A helpful person will arrive quite quickly to assist you. What they will not do is to do the thing for you. They will help you do the thing yourself. Fiddle Faddle 01:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I really have other interests but the problem is that these articles are in need of a lot of work.--Beguiled 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

All of Misplaced Pages is in need of a lot of work. Those articles have already had a huge amount of work, and the Controlled Deletion Hypothesis one that you chose to move unilaterally and that was moved back to revert your unilateral action has been ripped apart since September 2006 and rendered as encyclopaedic as the interested editors can make it. With an article that handles a controversial topic it is well to discuss your thoughts with other editors on the article talk page prior to taking what has already been perceived as precipitate action.

All of our actions are subject to the scrutiny of the community. My message here, to you, is under that same scrutiny as your actions. This is what a community is all about. The right to edit is bought by using it with responsibility. So far you have hit the administrators' noticeboard and gained some sort of reputation, probably not that which you wish or intended. Please edit responsibly and within the consensus of this place. Fiddle Faddle 22:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Look pal, I haven't done anything wrong except call something that I see as crap, crap. That article is longer than the factual one it must some some kind of ulternate universe thing or something. Other editors go around making zany comments about 9/11 not being because of terrorists and off the wall stuff like that and nobody seems to be worried about them. I call something crap and make a comment about something being stupid (when it is) and I get harassed! What is wrong with this place?--Beguiled 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not your pal, and I object to being spoken to in that way. Starting a conversation in bar with "look pal" is aggressive and often the precursor to starting a fight. No-one here is harassing you, but you are accusing others of all sorts of things. Please moderate your tone. Reading WP:CIVIL would be a good place to start aloingh with WP:NPA and WP:AGF Fiddle Faddle 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just let it go, both of you. Don't respond in kind. Tom Harrison 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone needs to relax, like it says below. After some well-meant initial actions that annoyed some people, Beguiled has not edited in article space, and has begun using the talk pages, as people asked him to. Experienced users forget what a complicated enviornment this is to work in. From Beguiled's point of view, he was invited to edit blodly, and then smacked around when he did. Let him get his feet on the ground. Tom Harrison 23:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Relax please

I saw your edits and commentary and you cannot call things crap or people stupid. The result will end up that you will be blocked from editing if this continues. Anyway, you are a new editor and I don't disagree with your opinion, but I do disagree with the manner you are expressing it...for future work, consult WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks.--MONGO 06:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yayaya. But others are allowed to make antiUS comments I suppose and no one says anything to them.--Beguiled 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Slow and steady is the way to do it. Tom Harrison 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The NIST reference for WTC7

Please understand that I did not remove it initially because I "did not like it". I stated my reasons with care in the edit history, where I stated "(the phrase removed is not cited by the source entered. Thsi phrase and source have been removed pending a reliable source for "lots of debris hitting WTc7")" complete with typos :). The key words were pending a reliable source for "lots of debris hitting WTc7" since the reference did not state that in any fashion whatsoever.

As it stands now the reference is back in the article, and we are grateful to you for pointing it out. I have strengthened the reference by including a full quote in the footnote and attributed its source fully. In addition I have documented this on the article talk page where I have been careful to show all of my reasoning.

You said on the talk page "People are now also removing my cited and referenced information just because they don't like facts here obviously. There is s serious problem here.", but this is absolutely not the case, as all inspecting the article and its edit history can see. Please step back and view this article without emotion, and understand that it documents the fact that the controlled demolition rumours started and how their proponents substantiate them. What it does not do is to give any credence to them, nor does it seek to disprove them. It simply presents facts within that framework. Fiddle Faddle 11:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop treating Misplaced Pages as a soapbox

It is obvious that you feel strongly about a set of articles. You have made that abundantly clear with your edits, with your edit histories and with your various questions and exhortations on talk pages.

It would behove you to read Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and to consider whether the way you are using Misplaced Pages is congruent with the way the community works. If you want to change something you do it by persuasive arguments, not by rhetoric or by tub thumping. It is far better, when trying to alter things, to work from within.

Your strong feelings could, if you choose, be turned to huge use as you refine your skills as an editor and as you strive to produce articles of the quality you desire. Please become a contributor of positive articles to Misplaced Pages Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I like your style!

Please continue to fight the good fight! -Unsigned

What?--Beguiled 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

New section for your suggestions on WTC CD

Hi Beguiled, I've put your recent comment in a separate section (new heading) since it didn't address the previous fires question. The easiests way to do that yourself is to use the "+" sign at the top of the page instead of editing the most recent comment. No biggie, but it helps to keep discussions orderly. Cheers.--Thomas Basboll 21:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Though I must say there hasn't really been anything constructive (that I can see) in your contribution thus far. Your last comment did still say you'd rather see it deleted. The improvements have been taking place ever since the article was created. The most recent AfD didn't change anything; it was just annoying. Just being straight with you. If you're just going to make completely general comments from the sidelines, it'd be much better if you didn't say anything at all. There must be something you know about this topic that motivates those comments; try to put that knowledge into the article.--Thomas Basboll 21:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you and I ever left square one (or even got there). As far as I'm concerned you're not on the board; you haven't been helpful yet. When you start contributing to the article (even if that means deleting things, i.e., errors) then I'll be able to see your praise and criticism "for what it is" (or as anything at all). Right now you're giving us nothing to go on. I also have no idea what you're basing your ideas about my POV (and changes in it) on. Like I say, if you know something about this topic that the rest of us don't, share it.--Thomas Basboll 22:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)