| Revision as of 11:28, 13 June 2006 editJeremygbyrne (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers4,034 edits Unblocking the Stop Osmanagich site← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:58, 24 August 2006 edit undoDoctor Octagon (talk | contribs)292 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :::Since there is a response from Osmanagich's team, it's about as well documented as anything else. It could be confirmed through FENA or the researchers if necessary. The response is irrelevant to it being cited as an alternative interpretation. --] 17:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | :::Since there is a response from Osmanagich's team, it's about as well documented as anything else. It could be confirmed through FENA or the researchers if necessary. The response is irrelevant to it being cited as an alternative interpretation. --] 17:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::I've got the site unblocked, so we can reference it now. — ] 11:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | :::I've got the site unblocked, so we can reference it now. — ] 11:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Ronz, what the fuck are you talking about on my talk page? ] 11:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:58, 24 August 2006
Hi Ronz. Thanks for adding the May 8th date to the Visocica article. Have you got a link that we could use to reference the conference stuff? — JEREMY 13:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The original press release included the date. Copies of the full release are on various discussion boards now that. Alun Salt's article, Bosnian Pyramids: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Atlantis, has the full press release and in the External Links section of the Bosnian pyramids article. --Ronz 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The article seems to have originated on a blocked website titled "Stop Osmanagich NOW!" (peticija dot white dot prohosting dot com/us.htm) which is not a good sign because we can't correctly cite it. I note that we don't seem to have included the Osmanagich team's response, which even "Stop Osmanagich NOW!" does, and that doesn't make us look very good. I'll investigate the spam block to see if it's legit before doing anything else, though. — JEREMY 17:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Since there is a response from Osmanagich's team, it's about as well documented as anything else. It could be confirmed through FENA or the researchers if necessary. The response is irrelevant to it being cited as an alternative interpretation. --Ronz 17:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've got the site unblocked, so we can reference it now. — JEREMY 11:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- The article seems to have originated on a blocked website titled "Stop Osmanagich NOW!" (peticija dot white dot prohosting dot com/us.htm) which is not a good sign because we can't correctly cite it. I note that we don't seem to have included the Osmanagich team's response, which even "Stop Osmanagich NOW!" does, and that doesn't make us look very good. I'll investigate the spam block to see if it's legit before doing anything else, though. — JEREMY 17:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Ronz, what the fuck are you talking about on my talk page? Doctor Octagon 11:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)