Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:44, 24 May 2009

"If it is not right, do not do it, if it is not true, do not say it." Where this user currently is, the time is 05:01, Thursday 26 December 2024. This is the user talk page for AGK. You can also send this user an internal email. I have taken 68,260 actions on Misplaced Pages: 54,362 edits, 3,301 deletions, 2,661 blocks, and 7,936 protections. You are welcome to reverse any of them, except if my reason mentioned "checkuser", "arbitration", or "oversight".

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories

Please review Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. There are a number of tendentious accounts who have made the page useless by filling it with speculation and pro-consiracy chatter. There's no way to work on the article through such disruption. We need help. Jehochman 16:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'll review the talk page presently. AGK 16:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• There's a tonne of threads on that talk page. As a third-party unfamiliar with the subject area, I'm finding it difficult to distinguish between idle chatter over fringe theories and discussion related to the subject matter of the article—especially when, from what I gather, the subject matter itself is somewhat berated by the mainstream public. … If you could point me to specific comments that you think to be inappropriate for talk page discussion (and, if possible, specific editors you think to be using that talk page in an unhelpful manner), then I would probably find it easier to provide advice or, as appropriate, take action. AGK 16:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So as not to prejudice matters, I'd rather not point fingers. Would you follow the talk page discussions until you get a view of what's going on and see if I am misinterpreting things or not. Thank you. Jehochman 00:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well. AGK 12:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition to Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, can you also have a look at Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth? This talk page is considerably shorter... well, as of this moment...  Cs32en  17:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

note re Falun Gong again, attempting to avoid edit war

Hi AGK,

I'm sorry you're hearing from me again so soon. There's been an ongoing dispute about the page List of campaigns of the Communist Party of China. PCPP wishes to have some other term linked than Persecution of Falun Gong because he disputes the legitimacy of that as a page title. I've basically said that that's an issue for that page and should be addressed on that talk page, rather than making up other names for the subject on other pages. None of the other listed campaigns use euphemisms, they just directly link to the page. At the moment he has reverted again, but I remembered your comments about simply not reverting in these cases, so I'm leaving this note here.--Asdfg12345 08:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend you open a Mediation Cabal case, by way of attempting to resolve the wider dispute. AGK 20:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:The_Thing_(film)#Contamination_of_Characters

Could you please advice? I have discontinued any type of conversation with Geoff B since your decision in April. I also apologized to Yomangan for the association with Geoff B. However, it appears Geoff B still believes I am instigating something (which I am not). ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docob5 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign on the first request Docob5 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with Geoff's comments in the course of that discussion (with, perhaps, the exception of the closing portion of his latest comment, which was hardly professionally and civilly worded). I'd encourage you to focus on improving the article, and building a consensus for disputed statements by means of constructive talk page discussion, and refrain from quarrelling with Wikipedians who are attempting to edit alongside you. AGK 20:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A Man In Black case timeline

Could you please leave a note for the parties (and probably post a copy somewhere on the case pages) that we'd like to have all evidence submissions in by June 6/7? Thanks! Kirill  18:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've left notes on the parties' talk pages and on the /Evidence talk page. Regards, AGK 18:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Roh

Sorry, you said "I protected over your semi- of this article" but I don't see your protection in the log. Anyway, I've unprotected the article since the protection seems to be unnecessary now. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki must have ignored it as it was essentially a duplicate of yours. Agree on the unprotection—probably long enough—too. Thanks, AGK 12:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

You're more than welcome. I'm pleased it passed. AGK 12:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Username

Actually, the origin on my username is that of the greek mythological architect, Daedalus.— Dædαlus 18:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)