| Revision as of 06:25, 1 July 2006 editTorinir (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers1,266 edits →***BEEP***← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:32, 22 July 2006 edit undoSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,950 edits →***BEEP***: Medcab on ASNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| ::Agreed. They could have started their own article, with relevant citations. No need to start an edit war, imho. --] 06:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC) | ::Agreed. They could have started their own article, with relevant citations. No need to start an edit war, imho. --] 06:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==MedCab on AS== | |||
| Not so fast :-) The user appears to have started that mediation for the sole purpose of harassing me, he didn't back up a single allegation, and the case needs to be closed in a way that I'm also satisfied. ] 23:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:32, 22 July 2006
Leave a message at the beep
***BEEP***
--MONGO 04:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I don't disagree with you in the least, and certainly, a pause before editing after making a suggestion for a substantive change should be the norm since people from all over the world edit Misplaced Pages and this would allow everyone a chance to chime in. I don't know how we would enforce it though. I think, in retrospect that the page should have been protected from editing and the dispute could have reached some kind of concensus through discussion. This works for awhile, however, since this operation has newcommers everyday, after a few months or less, it seems, the same arguments spring back up again. Happy editing. Oh, also, post comments at the end of talk pages...I'll move your comment to me.--MONGO 05:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
True. Though at least with a paper trail of citations on the talk page (preferably all together in once place) it'll keep arguments focused and, hopefully, logical. I will agree that enforcing a 24 hour comment time is going to be hard to make work, unless it could be coded to take effect with an administrator flag of an article perhaps? Protection of the 9-11 articles would service, although in deference to the opposing view, perhaps an Alternative 9/11 Theories article or stub? I don't dispute the fact that most don't think it is worthy of inclusion in the main article, although it may have enough outside support to have a stub or small article of its own.
Torinir 06:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- The are dozens of pages that discuss each building, even the four airplanes that hit the WTC, Pentagon, etc...there does exist the article 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is a pretty long article that incorporates, in summary style, most of the more widely held non mainstream thoughts on the matter.--MONGO 06:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. They could have started their own article, with relevant citations. No need to start an edit war, imho. --Torinir 06:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
MedCab on AS
Not so fast :-) The user appears to have started that mediation for the sole purpose of harassing me, he didn't back up a single allegation, and the case needs to be closed in a way that I'm also satisfied. Sandy 23:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)