| Revision as of 15:25, 1 December 2006 view sourceRegebro (talk | contribs)1,009 edits Incorrect use of a POV-tag.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:03, 12 April 2017 view source JzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,071 edits redundant talk page, cleaning up tor educe link count to crank website |
| (364 intermediate revisions by 55 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk plainlinks" style="padding:5px; width:auto;" |
|
Hi and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thanks for contributing! Did you know you can link to articles in Misplaced Pages by placing double square brackets around the name of the article you want to link to (<nowiki>]</nowiki>)? And if you want the word to show up as one word, but link to an article with a different name, you can "pipe" the link <nowiki>]</nowiki>. You can get other hints at ] and ]. Again, welcome, and let me know on ] | <small>]</small> 18:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| '''This account has been ] from editing Misplaced Pages.'''<br /><small>(info: • ] • ] • • )</small> |
|
== Re: Starforce == |
|
|
|
|}{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|historical|]|}}<!-- Template:Indefblockeduser --> |
|
|
|
|
|
{{pp-usertalk}} |
|
Hi, Lovelight. Don't worry that your first steps into the world of Misplaced Pages have been difficult. From what I have seen from your contributions so far it is clear that you are a passionate, thoughtful person who is willing to put some effort into trying to create something good. In other words, you would be a great Wikipedian :P Anyway, I'm a little preoccupied at the moment with things unrelated to WP, but you can rest assured that I will be keeping a close eye on the StarForce article to ensure that there is no bias or unverified information that survives or creeps in the article. I hope you'll stick around and contribute more to our encyclopedia. There are over a million subjects to write about, so if you find that you run into conflicts there are surely other articles where your contributions will be more welcome. I noticed you said you were writing an article for a gaming magazine. In case you're interested, me and a few other Wikipedians run the ], where we would certainly appreciate your input in the discussion. Take care and hope to see you around! Cheers, <b><font color="AE1C28">]</font><font color="#21468B">]</font></b> 23:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== LInkspam == |
|
|
Please stop adding linkspam to article talkpages as you have been doing repeatedly to the ] article. It does nothing to help us make the article better. Thanks.--] 07:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like you're here to disrupt...start being productive and stop insulting others.--] 12:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's the other way around Mongo, and you know it… --] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Your Myspace? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Lovelight, is that your myspace URL on the 'user page' ? |
|
|
|
|
|
:Nope, not my doing… That movie is particularly good tool, that's all. Have you seen ? ] 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I read through your completely valid and important points at the 9/11 discussion page. I gotta say that Mongo is a fucking imbecile by the sounds of his text entries.. and to think people like him are admins here? *shudders* I quit contributing to wiki months ago after doing it for around 1 year. The arseholes who admin and pseudo-admin this page site are fucking legion and insufferable imo, cocksuckers like that brainwashed missing link get my fucking goat no end. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Oh, but you shouldn’t have leaved, it is sad whenever quorum leaves forum:)… Stick around, arguments are arguments, logic is logical, Mongo and his drugz will bow to the facts… ] 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
These links may be old to you, but if not def visit plz.. very esp this 1st one which has a 1 hour documentary / lecture which led me to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. The ppl putting forward the evidence and theories are professors, civil engineers and M.I.T. physics graduates with decades of theoretical and practical experience in the laws of thermodynamics and physics and also in reality. (<--- you listening Mongo?) |
|
|
|
|
|
http://911revisited.com <---- 1 hour film here, essential viewing bro! |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.reopen911.org/ |
|
|
|
|
|
best wishes bro, |
|
|
The Late Great Bill Hicks |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks brother…this sort of data will be referenced sooner then later… ] 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This documentary is also essential viewing Lovelight. |
|
|
|
|
|
"9/11 Mysteries" (watch this and learn about controlled demolitions) |
|
|
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-6708190071483512003&hl=en |
|
|
|
|
|
TLGBH |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi L.L., |
|
|
I often see on these talk pages people saying things along the line of "its all conspiricy crackpots who question the official story.. where are cerdible doubters?" |
|
|
This first link lists a large number of credible patriots who openly question 9/11. |
|
|
(the second link is where I obtained the first link from) And feel free to delete anything I have posted on your page here, if it's getting to cluttered or if you are getting any hassle for any of my comments. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/southpark_911_episode_on_conspiracy.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
regards, |
|
|
TLGBH |
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
I thought these links may interest you LoveLight ; |
|
|
|
|
|
US Army Announces Readiness for Total Military Takeover of America |
|
|
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/us_army_announces_readiness_takeover_usa.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Olbermann criticizes Bush |
|
|
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7150467909517615896&q=keith+olbermann |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doomsday For The Internet As We Know It? |
|
|
http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/internet_doomsday_for_internet.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also I was wondering why the information from the http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ link isn't mentioned or listed on the 9/11 page.. the link has quotes from members of the Republican party, US Army Generals, Ex CIA employees and many others who all openly, publically and vehemently disagree with the official 9/11 story. If their opinions on the tragedy aren't relevant to the 9/11 page then I dont know what is. |
|
|
|
|
|
== fbi == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I've continued the discussion on: ]. Would you please take a look? — ] <small>]</small> 10:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Your link title== |
|
|
Please see . I'm taking a wikibreak, so any follow-up will be by another admin. Please don't reply on my talk page. The article talk page is the suitable place for any response. You might like to read through the recent . ] 03:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please do not add potentially defamatory material, even to talk pages. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. <!-- Template:No personal attacks (npa2) --> --] 18:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== FYI == |
|
|
|
|
|
have you seen this discussion at ]? |
|
|
|
|
|
==RFM== |
|
|
{{RFM-Request|September 11, 2001 Attacks}} |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/September_11%2C_2001_Attacks#Involved_parties my mistake on this. if you could inform the other involved parties (and fix mongo's) with the proper page, that would be appreciaed. I'm getting off |
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
Hello, |
|
|
|
|
|
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Help us craft a real encylopedia article == |
|
|
|
|
|
HI Lovelight. I think the tactics the Feds are using are just to wear us down, frustrate us and get us to go away. It would be much more fruitful to spend some time editing the ] article and return later when their guard may be down. And also when we've bult a strong concesnus among not Federal employees (I'm tole the wiki word for them is '''clowns''') for the new version. --] 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== an article of possible interest to you == |
|
|
|
|
|
The ] article is in serious need of attention. It presents numerous Conspiracy Theories regarding alleged ties between Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda as fact, when these theories have been refuted, rejected, denied and discounted by the U.S. Government, various U.S. Governmental hearings and commissions, and almost all the respected experts, many of whom are retired U.S. Intelligence. This is a clear case of misusing Wiki to advance fallacious and discredited Conspiracy Theories. Perhaps you could help there. Thanks in advance. - ] 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Could you give me your sources?== |
|
|
This involves the ] article. I'd like some links to your sources for Jones, et al. so I can try to end the debate and solve the POV problems. You can either put them on ], under the section called WOT or on my talk page.--] 18:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
==Re: ]== |
|
|
I took a risky move and removed some of your comments from this page. I really didn't understand your argument, and I didn't understand why you included this letter, which made no sense. If this is a problem, I will '''immediatly''' restore those comments. The best evidence you have is the quotes from MONGO. Please let me know what you want me to do. i have not worked with you before, but I have seen your edits agains and again on the Sept 11 attack page, so I hope you are not offended. ] (]) 20:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I restored those edits: when Nuclear messsaged me. I would suggest rewritting your section. ] (]) 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Incorrect use of a POV-tag. == |
|
|
|
|
|
In edit you added a POV-tag to a talk article. POV-tags are for main articles only. So now you know, and won't do it again, right? --] 15:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
