| Revision as of 12:45, 26 November 2006 editMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits →September 11th attacks: Demand retraction of comment immediately← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:35, 21 September 2021 edit undoPrimeBOT (talk | contribs)Bots2,048,556 editsm →David Ray Griffin: Task 24: removal of a template following a TFDTag: AWB | ||
| (101 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==My talk page== | |||
| {{message}} | {{message}} | ||
| ==Useful links== | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ] <small>(])</small> 01:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Jones' plans == | |||
| {{Archive box| | |||
| Hi. I started responding on the Jones talk page but my response doesn't really have anything to do with the article so... | |||
| <center>], ], ]</center> | |||
| }} | |||
| I think the most interesting paper Jones could write (though it may require him to bone up on some engineering) would be one that challenges Bazant's energy calculations, i.e., his confident claim that the potential energy of the tops of the towers was at least an order of magnitude greater than what the lower portion was able to support. Though I'm not qualified to assess his calculations, Bazant seems to ignore the core columns, and does most of his modeling in two dimensions (a cross section of the building's structure.) A paper like that (directly responding to Bazant's) could/should be published in ''Structural Engineering ASCE'' (where Bazant's is forthcoming). Actually, I think the fact that such a paper has been published is a little embarrassing for CT'ers in precisely the way Mongo normally suggests. However, it would not surprise me if political concerns factor into the editorial decisions of engineering journals (as is well known in other scientific disciplines). | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Anyway, what a strange experience Misplaced Pages is! Thanks for being there.--] 13:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Oooops. I meant "the fact that such a paper has NOT been published..."--] 15:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692039973 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2017 election voter message == | |||
| == 9/11 split AfD == | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, SalvNaut. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| I think you may misunderstand me. I am wholly infavour of splitting this article. I am simply not in favour of making a monumental cockup. If we retain the currently split article there is the huge danger of retaining a genuine POV fork that was created in error. I believe that we have to delete the currently debated article, and then resplit, '''boldly''' and '''correctly'''. Done properly thuis will create a far better set of articles. ] 11:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I understand that you are wholly infavour of splitting. I just don't feel a such strong need to follow the protocols. The situation seems clear to me - the split has to be done, most people agree about it, arguments of the other side are not strong enough (they keep repeating POV fork argument). I understand though, that the other side may think differently :). I belive that admins and ppl with experience will do the right thing. There is a quite long and fruitful discussion about splitting on ]. Please join and express your thoughts. --] 12:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| :Huh? :) Finally I understood what is wrong here - your username is Timtrent and you keep using FiddleFaddle nickname :) heh, that's really misleading when you look on the watchlist. No problem though - I can live with that :) --] 12:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::(I created the id, then created the nickname. I was surprised the way the wiki software handled it, but by the time I'd worked it out I had written and signed a lot of messages etc, so too late to change it. Its valid, but cionfusing. Many others have a nickname as well as a user ID.) I see another editor has been bold and made what may well be the correct split. Good for him. It's not protocol I want to follow blindly. It's just that this has got so far "incorrectly" that I fear (feafed?) we would throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm hopeful that it will now be resolved well. ] 20:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Gladio == | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/08&oldid=813407029 --> | |||
| ==David Ray Griffin== | |||
| Hi, I noticed your interest in Gladio, I thought you might be interested in this also: a friend of mine in Le Monde Diplo interviewed Dr. Ganser on Gladio and 9.11 . ] 13:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. Thank you. ] (]) 01:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
| :Hi, thank you for this - very interesting, it's good that people around the world start to take a close look. One thought: | |||
| :a citation about WTC7: "But then several professors building safety, to whom I presented this claim here in Switzerland, said it was not possible. It was just a small fire - it could not bring down this big building as fast as 7 seconds." | |||
| :I think that those professors should be interviewed, they even should write an academic paper about it (is WTC7 design scheme available to look into?). --] 13:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I believe there is some information on the FEMA and NIST websites, but as they haven't completed the final report yet, I think everything isn't there (it may never be). There is a professor of fire safety in either the University of Glasgow or Edinburg that has attempted to recreate the WTC fires. He has published a number of interesting papers on the subject, but he does not claim that the fires didn't knock down the towers, simply that it is not known how they did. ] 20:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Please contribute to Straw Poll == | |||
| Hi, we are having a straw poll in order to save the "9/11 Conspiracies" page from generalized disorganization. Could you please help us out by casting your vote ]? Thanks --] 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Please observe the ] before trying to edit again on the ] article...thanks.--] 10:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your concern, but I'd prefer you to discuss your reverts on the discussion ]. | |||
| ::the matter was discussed on the one article, you then take it to a subarticle and start pushing this stuff there, the exact same nonsense.--] 19:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I wanted to invite you to join a new WikiProject I have started called Association of 9/11 All Sides Editors. The main goal will be to patrol the 9/11 articles in an organized manner to help stop the abuse of the delete process which, judging by some of your comments in recent 9-11 related AfD pages, you are quite familiar with. I dug into the histories of some of the people on there trying real hard to push the deletion through and I see that it is part of a larger, organized attempt to get rid of everything other than the articles that they agree with on the topic. Not surprisingly, one of them proposed my project for deletion within a couple hours of creation. If you want to learn more about the idea, please see ]. --] 11:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Controlled demolition AfD request == | |||
| Hi, an admin recommended I ask someone else to make note of this, per by ]. Would you be willing per that advice to post that/draw attention to the fact of the previous AfD and the people involved? It seems that this article was AfD'd again immediately after the last ended. I suspect that MONGO will become incensed if I do it myself, as we both and got blocked over this from edit warring. I'm asking 1-2 other editors as well. I am asking you as you've participated in the AfD, and Joshua recommended I do this. Thanks. · ] · 04:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Uh,oh... hi... I've been absent for a while, and I am gone withing few moments. I hope the case has been resolved - is ''Clarification'' by Thomas Basboll enough? Anyway, I whish you (and all of us) a lot of patience, peacfulness and persistance when interacting with Mongo. Cheers! ] 14:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == if you could keep me apprised? == | |||
| I created a special page for my own use at ]. If you should happen to see any AfDs, MfDs, etc., that you think I should know about, please feel free to update this page to notify me--it works for me as an include to both my User and Talk page, so I will see it. I unfortunately don't always have time to look at the whole listings of those sections, or keep up. This will help a lot. Also, if you want, feel free to help yourself to using it as well on your own page. I added instructions for the curious in case they don't know fancy wikicode. Feel free to let anyone else know about my page and it's function--I don't mind more people knowing about, so that I can be aware. · ] · 06:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == users who accuse == | |||
| I was also tempted to leave a message requesting the cessation of accusations. I wonder if it might work better if we all handle the points made in detail, but ignore anything that accuses. Different people interact in different ways. That's fine. But if we react back we may develop a war rather than an article. If it becomes really difficult we can take a different view :) ] 20:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Your dignity and patience surprise me as always. :) You are right, of course. My opinion is that one has to "bite back" sometimes - maybe this was not the case. I have no intention to engage in any war. I'll do my best. ] 20:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I suppose I am old enough and ugly enough to ignore pretty much anything :) I tend to take a view that, deprived of oxygen, a fire will go out by itself. I can have my buttons pressed, but it takes a lot. If you want to see real patience, have a look at my talk page archives for discussions with a user Yy-bo. Eventually I was assertive, but it took a while :) A less amusing one was one I had to take to mediation. Display infinite patience and state a case simply. But only back down when in error, and then do it swiftly and with humility. I have no idea whether this was the right time to bite back or note. I just feel we must not get distracted or another AfD will overtake the article. ] 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Sorry, You've lost me == | |||
| Your edit history note: "nothing important) FiddleFaddle: I'd prefer you to copy it instead of divide so the overall meaning of the first comment stays the same :)" I didn't know I'd split aything! Care to enlighten me? please? :) | |||
| :Oh, I am so sorry. It wasn't you. My comment has been split and new section has been created and it changed a bit the overall meaning of my comment. As it turns out, Thomas did it. Instead of looking at the page history I took the first person (you) that replied to Mmx1 to be the splitter. Again, I'm sorry for my innacuarcy and rash.] 20:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not to worry. I guess it's natural since I seem to be acting as sheepdog on a few admin things anyway :) I was just lost and wanted to make sure I hadn't done something silly ] 21:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Do you know what tag to use for the collapse image? == | |||
| Hi Salvnut, | |||
| I wrote back to Aman Zafar with the proper format this time, specifying the page it would be used on, etc., and he again agreed to allow the use of his pictures (he said "as long as I'm not responsible," and even noted the images are now improved resolution on his site). I just don't know what tag to use! I can do all the rest of it. Do you know? It's the image with one tower standing and the other collapsing. ] 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmmm, actually I've never done it but I've checked ] and I guess that ] license would be ok. Does Aman Zafar recognizes the fact that he is about to release his picture for wide use under some license? If I were to release a picture on Misplaced Pages it would be "Fair use" license and from what you've written it seems that Aman Zafar would agree, too. If you think this is the case you can use one of those tags ]. | |||
| :Oh! I've just read on ]: | |||
| :''Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Misplaced Pages can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious.'' | |||
| :So maybe it's wiser to ask Aman if he prefers to release his image on one of the ]? ] 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :<nowiki>{{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|restrictions}}</nowiki> could be appropriate if Aman wants to have a link to his page under the picture. ] 22:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Steorn "Facts" == | |||
| Saying that the ad costs £75k is (a) speculation (can you cite how much standard Economist rates are?) and (b) in any case implies, which I don't understand anyone has substantiated, that Steorn actually paid exactly that much. | |||
| If this is an Economist Prank, which no-one has refuted, Steorn may not have paid anything. | |||
| Until you can provide some notable evidence for the assumption, not a "fact" at all. ] 21:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Out of the blue, you show up at another editor's talkpage to launch a personal attack.... Surely, you know the ] regarding this, but if you don't, please read up on it. Thanks.--] 13:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :"Wikipedians engaging in debate is an essential part of the culture of Misplaced Pages." The debate was ongoing and already missed the topic, one of the comments struck me, I've decided to comment. Personally, I've found criticism towards me very instructive in the past and it allowed me to have a broader look on myself. That's said I of course adhere to the policy and no real excuse for me here. ] 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Um, there's no excuse for comments such as this one either.--] 10:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfC== | |||
| I have opened a request for comment at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment removed=== | |||
| I removed your comments as you are not permitted to create dis-endoresement sections on an RfC, please use the talk page if you would like to offer a rebuttal to something. Thank you. --]<s>]</s> 16:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| I blocked you and ] for violating ] on ] for 24 hours. Thanks ] ] 02:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == September 11th attacks == | |||
| I may be blocked now. If you could help maintain the template it's a <nowiki>{{NPOV}}</nowiki> template that's added to the top of the page. Thanks. --] 18:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Then they will block me to... There is more of them. We need more editors to fight them this way. Other way I think could be putting up RfC to draw "the community eye" to this case. Article is biased for sure. It repeats myths about 9/11 without proper perspective. ] 18:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Organization - that's what is needed here. ] 18:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Demand retraction of comment immediately == | |||
| Tbeatty mentioned ] and you then stated "Be careful with razors, you can cut something important."...next time I see you suggesting bodily harm, I will block you indefinitely. You best remove that comment...now.--] 12:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:35, 21 September 2021
| Please leave a new message. |
 Archives |
|
|
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, SalvNaut. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
David Ray Griffin
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)