User talk:Renamed user FoctULjDYf/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

User:Striver's behavior

Since I've witnessed it at its inception, I'd like to document User:Striver's attempt to wikibomb Wikipedia for the benefit of those who stepped in later:

On February 22nd, Striver threw a pov tag on September 11, 2001 attacks [[1]] demanding equal time for alternate views as the official view is nothing other than 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory and demands POV fork. Striver also creates 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory which is promptly afd'd[[2]]. He eventually caves two days later but vows to return "I do not see any point in continuing this. I am convinced my arguement is valid, but i get discouraged when people keep reiterating things i have disproven. Ill return to this later, you can delete it now", presumably after he has cooked up enough evidence.

He cites the following from Jimbo Wales "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" and attempts to prove that his beliefs are held by a significant minority with the following list:

• James Bamford, investigative journalist, and a former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight.
  • Who he later admits was a mistake, owing to his using wikipedia as a source ;-)
• Robert M. Bowman Head of Advanced Space Programs for DOD and retired Lt. Col for United States Air Force, a combat pilot who flew 101 missions in the Vietnam War
• Former Air Force administrator with a mediocre political campaign attempting to petition onto the ballot for Congress in Florida. --Mmx1 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Lawyer Kristin Breitweiser is one of four widows who lost their husbands on 9/11 that formed a group known as the "Jersey Girls."
• Andreas von Bülow is a former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service and former Minister for Research and Technology in the cabinet of German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, and for 25 years an SPD member of the German parliament
• As has been corrected on his page, he was state-secretary in the Defense Ministry, not "assistant defense minister". Perhaps a German can elaborate on the difference. --Mmx1 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Michel Chossudovsky, Canadian economist. He is a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa.
• Tom Flocco is a Philadelphia-based independent investigative journalist and teacher who has written for American Free Press, From The Wilderness, Judicial Watch, Narco News, NewsMax.com, Scoop.co.nz and WorldNetDaily.
• Rodger Herbst, bachelor of aeronautical and astronautical engineering and mechanical engineer
• Jim Hoffman, software engineer
  • "In order to more easily research the many complex details of the September 11th attacks, Hoffman put together a collection of original hypertext pages of information. By developing a software tool for creating hierarchies of web pages, with references linking to source documents, he was able to quickly navigate to any of its many pages. Originally developed as a research tool, the system later evolved into the 911-Research website.[1]"
  • In other words.....he put together a website. --Mmx1 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University, coined the term cold fusion.
• Peter Lance is an investigative reporter, a former ABC News correspondent, and a five-time Emmy-winner
• Michael Meacher UK Minister of Environment
• John Newman spent 21 years in Army Intelligence and served as Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency.
• Michael C. Ruppert, a former narcotics investigator for the LAPD
• Peter Dale Scott, former Canadian diplomat and emeritus English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley
• David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton

Then the wikibombing starts. The following articles are created, revived, or updated with rampant inter-linking between them.

9-11: The Road to Tyranny

He creates this page to substantiate a reference for a David Schippers quote from the movie. Seeing no further information available than what already existed on Alex Jones (journalist), and recognizing the WP:POINT creation, I promptly afd'd it, recommending merge and redirect to Alex Jones (journalist). Despite attempts to improve the page, there is no verifiable information on the page other than a synopsis of the film.

Robert M. Bowman

He creates the page Robert M. Bowman which had previously been a redirect to Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11#Robert Bowman in an attempt to illustrate notability. I again afd'd the article on the basis of non-notable. (Full disclosure here, I'm not hiding anything). As of yet, no verifiable evidence has been posted for Mr. Bowman's autobiographical claims, and his awards have been scrutinzed and found wanting. Namely, his claim to have worked for "Star Wars" are false and an exaggeration of his administrative role on earlier, smaller Space projects. I lay the fault for these at the feet of the self-aggrandizing Mr. Bowman, Striver's attempts to insert him to SDI I write off as overeager acceptance of a politician's words. Striver's final stand is that Mr. Bowman is notable because he is notable in the community of 9-11 doubters. A bit circular when you claim his notability means the 9-11 doubters are notable.

I've made some efforts to improve the article on Bowman using as much as possible other sources than him, and it seems like there are additional opportunities for expansion. I think a number of the articles Striver added are probably deserving of being on WP, it's just unfortunate that he added so many seemingly to push 9/11 conspiracy theories and also that the articles added were of such low quality. Bowman seems like an interesting guy and notable for several reasons, though I'd never heard of him before and he's clearly got his flaws. Bowman's name actually was already on WP - in the article on Óscar Romero, added by user 168.98.32.21 back in December. Schizombie 13:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The UCC do seem to take themselves quite seriously. See the rightmost photo here which includes Bowman and his wife Deacon Maggie: http://www.greatlakesdiocese-ucc.org/Gallery.htm Where are you standing on the deletion of this article? If you want to let the relative notability of the 9/11 conspiracists be known for what it is, allowing it to remain would almost do them more harm than the good the OP wanted. I may be able to look up those NYT articles at the library later this week if it's still around. Schizombie 08:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

--Mmx1 14:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Bowman was also already in Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11, and like the movie I afd'd, I feel it's sufficient to keep his bio as a section in the context of another article as his primary claim to notability is his 9/11 activities; his personal accomplishments are of little note. I'll stand by my afd. Have been able to find all but the op-ed through lexis-nexis; for whatever reason it's not been scanned, so I'd have to find the microfilm. --Mmx1 14:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Bowman's got less than two weeks to get on the ballot! I'd be willing to bet he won't make it. I wonder how many ex-military cranks there are? I just learned of retired General Herbert C. Holdridge who evidently ran for president for the American Vegetarian Party and who created his own Constitutional Government of the United States and his own Supreme Court, in which he tried Lyndon B. Johnson, Earl Warren, Richard, Helms, Cardinal James Spellman, J. Edgar Hoover and others in absentia and sentenced them to "Death By Fire" which one would think would have conflicted with his supposed pacificist beliefs. That must have earned him a Secret Service visit, unless they never learned of it or didn't feel it necessary to bother. Esquizombi 14:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Scholars_for_9_11_Truth

Creates this page for a group that include the preponderance of the individuals above; about to be merged into Scholars_for_9/11_Truth, whose fate is yet unknown.

Problem Reaction Solution

In defense of the 9-11: The Road to Tyranny page, he recreates this one, which was previously [deleted] to wikify themes from the movie. Notability of this theme is in doubt.

The_Citizens'_Commission_on_9-11

Created this page, also with most of the individuals above, claiming it to be Congressional hearings. Has been [[3]] and the current page reflects what amounts to a private conference (a conspiracy, if you will :-) )

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conspiracies_Guild

Striver created this project, to tie together all of his POV-pushing, so it's not just the voices in my head that think all the above are linked. Makes for a convenient place to track all of his entries. As of yet I believe I'm the only other member ;-).

Was willing to tolerate it but the decision to [up friends and foes in this project] crosses the line. Despite his vitrol, I'm dissapointed for not being named despite having been among the earliest to afd his stubs.

See also the former Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild and Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy and subpages, which are just a few of the other WikiProjects made by said user to push POV (there are others that remain). Schizombie 19:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Lila Rajiva

Created this stub, which has also, unsuprisingly, been afd'd.

related:

counterpunch.org

Created this article which was promptly merged and redirected to CounterPunch (newsletter)

Peter Lance

Another writer of little note. Yet to be afd'd pending verification of emmy notability.

Conspiracy factualist

Created this neologism page. Now afd'd.

Other info

Striver has also been soliciting votes among those that have voted "keep" in his afd threads, as well as advertising on Talk:Alex Jones (journalist, and of course, the conspiracy project page.

Conclusions

I am attempting to be professional about this. User:Zora mentioned that User:Striver has a prior penchant for creating articles with little content on other subject matter so I will not chalk all of it up to a conspiracy theory, but the pattern of behavior indicates a pattern of creation of articles of little apparent merit to prop up the original POV claim. Would encourage Striver to focus on quality, not quantity. Must admit the user is trying my patience.

I would be far less adamant about stomping out stubs were it not for the appearance that they are part of a campaign. I am willing out of good faith to let a stub remain while sources are collected. My good faith is tested when the intent of the articles is suspect.

--Mmx1 05:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of creating articles with little content: List of notable Muslim reports

It's a well-organized list, and not all the "reports" (hadith) linked therefrom are stubs, but quite a lot of them are and I doubt if they'll be expanded, and their notability isn't established. "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" would seem to apply IMO, possibly warranting merges, but what a big project that would be. Often the usual bad spelling and lack of categories. Adding scores of hadith when the articles on the collections of hadith (e.g. Sahih Bukhari) and other texts important to muslims are mere stubs seems to me to be a grossly misplaced priority. Sigh. I see it had been up for AfD before. Schizombie 08:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

See Zora's talk page as to why she thinks this Strivercruft is not worth tackling. Schizombie 19:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Three forms of mathematical induction

This article was intended to be comprehensible to all mathematicians.

It was not intended to teach mathematical induction. It was not intended to explain what mathematical induction is, nor how to use it.

What I see is (mostly) a bunch of non-mathematicians looking at the stub form in which the article appeared when it was nominated from deletion, and seeing that

• It was not comprehensible to ordinary non-mathematicians who know what mathematical induction is, and

• The article titled mathematical induction is comprehensible to ordinary non-mathematicians, even those who know --- say --- secondary-school algebra, but have never heard of mathematical induction.

And so I have now expanded the article far beyond the stub stage, including

• Substantial expansion and organization of the introductory section.

• Two examples of part of the article that is probably hardest to understand to those who haven't seen these ideas.

• An prefatory statement right at the top, saying that this article is NOT the appropriate place to try to learn what mathematical induction is or how to use it, with a link to the appropriate article for that. It explains that you need to know mathematical induction before you can read this article.

Therefore, I invite those who voted to delete before I did these recent de-stubbing edits, to reconsider their votes in light of the current form of the article.

(Nothing like nomination for deletion to get you to work on a long-neglected stub article!) Michael Hardy 23:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a maths undergrad with three years of graduate study, and I see nothing of value in the article other than pedantic hair-splitting about the various base cases. From an abstract point of view, there's no significant difference between the three. The first and second, in fact, are identical. --Mmx1 00:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

popups difference?

I noticed that when you reverted changes to the USAA article, your edit summary was:

Revert to revision dated 15:18, 11 March 2006 by Pd_THOR, oldid 43330468 using popups

But when I made a reversion with popups earlier, my edit summary only said:

Revert to revision 43320194 using popups

Do you know why your reversion tool would garner a different edit summary than mine? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

may be the manner in which we did it. I think I did it from a popup from the history page, pointing at the date of your revision. There are other ways to do a revision with popups, don't know which you did. I imagine they're not always consistent in the way the popups are coded. --Mmx1 22:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Karl Marx

Excuse me, why did you remove the category from the article? Please discuss in the talk page. -- infinity0 23:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A conspiracy to deny another persons civil rights

What we have here, at USAA, is a clearly orchestrated and organized effort by a large group of people who are acting in concert, incognito, and against one person, to suppress the dissemination of information. I strongly urge the rent-a-shills who make no contribution and express no opinion - but who act in concert to intimidate and suppress the expression of what they acknowledge to be only one person who is expressing a considered and well researched opinion - I strongly suggest that you read these Federal Statutes:

18 USC § 1951 [Hobbs Act]
18 USC § 241 [Conspiracy Against Rights]
18 USC § 242 [Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law]
18 USC § 245 [Federally Protected Activities]

In other words, why not dress up in hooded white robes and gallop around: that is the only way you could make your activities even more threatening. You are hereby cautioned that what you are doing may be violative of Federal Civil Rights Statutes: and you may be may be making yourself liable to a civil action for money damages.

If there is something you disagree with at USAA, why don't you substitute your own suggested text: or even better, edit what is there.

Federal Civil Rights Statues? You've lost it. The current version is encylopedic, your version is a soapbox. --Mmx1 02:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, don't edit my user page. Secondly, buzz off. The page has been discussed ad nauseum months ago and your argument hasn't changed. Pretending your concerns weren't heard is willful ignorance. --Mmx1 03:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 21:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmx1

You're not smarter than the average bear: not even close.

66.171.61.143 is the IP of anybody using Verizon's dial-up internet service. Mmx1: hello. " Earth to Mxx1" Major Tom to Ground Control. Are you there? Knock knock - anybody upstairs? Duh Mmx1. Duh!

Ray McGovern

What does "(→Views - Do not need to soapbox by proxy - this is as clear an example of coatracking as i've ever seen.)" mean?

a) Striver has a history of pushing his conspiracy views by propping up articles of people sharing his views. This is not altogether bad, but the manner he's approaching it is highly encyclopedic. Rather than being an article about X's views, it's X saying Y, basically reproducing his schpiel. You can say Ray McGovern believes there's a 9/11 coverup, thinks Bush should be impeached, and thinks there's ulterior motives behind the Iraq war, without having 500 words of McGovern pitching it himself. That's the soapbox by proxy. Instead of presenting his POV, he's pushing the words of people he agrees with under the guise of encyclopedic content.

b) coatracking is a term another editor coined (my deepest apologies for forgetting who), describing the use of a bio to push a POV. The bio is the coatrack, and the POV is the coat. Rather than being simply a description of the person, the entry consists of a short bio and a inordinately long section describing their political views. The attention is drawn away from the individual and to the pontification of that individual's views, like a coat obscures the coatrack.

E.g. The Bush (to name a prominent politician) entry is not a 1 paragraph bio followed by 3 pages of quotes of George Bush's campaign statements. His policies are a small part of his bio, commensurate with his accomplishments, history, and whatnot. Moreover, they are presented not as quotes, but as NPOV prose. By definition, quoting a politican is NPOV; it's their POV!

Regarding Ray McGovern, feel free to expand the section on his views to further devlop his nuances, but do them with original prose, not regurgitated quotes (those should be cited, not copied). I distilled the included quotes down to their essence, you'd probably know his nuances better than I.

--Mmx1 04:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Weregerbil/Coatrack? Esquizombi 19:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. --Mmx1 19:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

listen

Leytewolfer (or whatever) wrote about child-stalking and masturbating. He should engage his brain before he starts typing.

You - sir - a just a paid shill: so why don't you simply stay out of it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.2.186 (talk • contribs)

I've repeatedly warned you not to edit my user page. You have no respect for Wiki etiquitte.

--Mmx1 15:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

NorthMiester

I saw this and this. Thanks, what he was doing was that he was going around reverting my reverts (revenge reverting) because he was trying to promote the Larouchite "Economic System" on the Pat Buchanan page. Luckily, I reported what he was doing and he has since been blocked for 48hrs.--Jersey Devil 02:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Jersey Devil did not like the fact that I deleted what I considered harmful commentary on the Gatekeeper deletion vote page (AfD). SEE HERE. So he responded by going to my articles at Wealth of Nations, and Dirigisme among others and reverting (REVENGE REVERTS he calls them) them without commentary on the talk page. I responded by looking into his edit history. I saw that he was engaged in the same thing at other pages. So I took a stand on something I knew about to stop this - Democracy Now! (I am a progressive Democrat afterall). I did this to give User:Radical Mallard a chance to respond to his reverts without discussion. We came to an agreement that it was not helpful to revert others material without discussing it (unless it is an anonymous user or obvious vandalism) and he apologized for his conduct. Then a few days later he again reverted Dirigisme without discussion (while a discussion was in process with another user Will Beback). I took offense first, because he broke our cordial agreement to not revert without first discussing why and second because after I reverted back he reverted again, until I could revert no more (each time he did not list a reason on the talk page). He continues as above to insinuate I am a LaRouche supporter when I am not. This is the same thing Will Beback has done to me since I arrived over disputes at the American System page. I have bent over backwards for them with citations and references and they continue to call me this name. I even wrote a brief about myself to indicate a little about me and where I am from and sent Wikimedia my real name to be on record. That is a little background to balance the above statement. PS. My Buchanan edit was actually accepted by Will Beback after he found out it was well founded himself by the way. --Northmeister 07:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Jersey Devil RfC

I was asked to comment on the Jersey Devil RfC regarding the conflict with Stiver. Can you help explain to me what this RfC is and what the consequences are? I am not very aware of the conflict between those two editors, but am very aware of what I see as questionable edits by Striver on Google and Google and privacy issues. --mtz206 02:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment on users is to generate discussion about user behavior to establish some sort of Wiki consensus on what is acceptable. Blocks are possible but reserved for extreme behavior. As much as I am fed up with Striver's behavior, I do not see it rising to require a block, nor for Jersey Devil. For history on Striver, look at the top of this page. Short version: User pushes his POV heavily with short, badly written articles that consist mostly of blockquotes from bloggers he agrees with, like Alex Jones and Lila Rajiva. Typically, the fuzzy NPOV surrounding topics like 9-11 results in no consensus and heavy edit wars. However, I think with the internet articles he crossed a line as it's clear that Alex Jones doesn't know what he's talking about regarding Internet2, and there are much more prominent (and less fringe) groups concerned about Google. He has had a previous history in pushing Shia articles, with the same technique of creating stubs that consist largely of blockquotes, and has followers and enemies from those fights.

Striver pissed off a lot of people by trying to slap a NPOV tag on the 9-11 article and trying to get every statement of the 9-11 commission qualified with "arguably". When he was defeated, he resorted to trying to establish the notability of his conspiracy theories with the chain of articles above. This was when I was tipped off to his behavior, as was JD. I've been less bold about AfD'ing his articles, but JD has kind of made it a mission. I don't see it as unfair as the user has a long history of creating articles of questionable notability, with the AfD's resulting in no-consensus after the litancy of conspiracy theorists on wiki rushing to his defense. --Mmx1 02:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks - your summary above is quite helpful. --mtz206 02:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

911 Eyewitness

You'd probably be interested in the AfD on this. Esquizombi 03:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Litre

There was a kernel of truth behind the text someone added to centimetre, but it was poorly worded and doesn't belong in that article in any case, so I agree with your deletion there.

It is probably already discussed under litre; the litre is not part of the International System of Units, the modern metric system. However, it is now classified as a unit "acceptable for use with SI". Note that when SI was introduced in 1960, it wasn't even that. It didn't become acceptable for use with SI until after the 1964 restoration of its definition as exactly a cubic decimetre. Gene Nygaard 16:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

gotcha, so it's about measures of length vs volume, not litre vs mililitre, which is how it was worded. --Mmx1 16:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not quite; it's about the SI being a "coherent" system of units as that term is used in metrology. That means that all the derived units have to be "unitary" combinations of the base units. The derived unit of volume in SI is thus the cubic meter. Now, a name for the cubic meter (and there is at least one, the stere), could be accepted as part of SI, but has not been. But the liter could never be part of SI, because it is not exactly one times a combination of base units (in this case, meters times meters times meters), but rather 1/1000 times that combination, or one times the length unit with a prefix other than the unprefixed base unit in this system. Same goes for the "metric ton" or "tonne", which is not one times the base unit kilogram, but 1000 times it.

It was worse from 1901 to 1964, when the relationship between a liter and a cubic centimeter was about 1 L = 1000.028 cm³ (and this relationship was a measured quantity, not a defined one). Now that the relationship between liters and cubic meters is an exact power of ten (1 L = 0.001 m³ exactly), it is likely that the liter will always be considered acceptable for use with SI, though it will not likely ever be an official part of SI. Gene Nygaard 16:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Striver

I've been having increased encounters with User:Striver recently about his desire to put references to these Alex Jones-related claims/events on Google, History of Google, Google and privacy issues and now even Charlie Sheen. Any suggestions on how to deal with this. It seems to just turn into revert and comment wars. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks. --mtz206 03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Get a consensus on talk page from a variety of editors; shouldn't be hard with the technical nature of the articles. Argue politely but firmly as the facts are on your side. He has turned away when he sees the consensus is against him. The problem is when all the other moonbats come out of the woodwork and encourage him. If he doesn't accept the talk page consensus, bring an RfC. Keep me apprised. I missed the Charlie Sheen bit, but I frankly don't care. Let the Sheen page reflect his ignorance. "Charlie Sheen comments on the internet....between sniffs of blow" whatever. My concern is the important pages of Google/Internet2, whatnot.

Regarding google; there are sane arguments on privacy grounds. Googlewatch and prisonplanet aren't sane one (Wikiwatch is hilarious). Find the sane ones and put those up as alternatives to the conspiracy crap. --Mmx1 03:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks. --mtz206 04:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw this. I have to wonder what Striver has to do to get his "followers" to acknowledge he is a bad user. He broke with WP:POINT by creating an article tagged with an afd and yet nothing happens. He is continued to be allowed to do this, backed by GeorgeWilliamHerburt, Irishpunktom, etc... , whilst I get attacked by the same people. It really boggles my mind, maybe instead of contributing to articles about Peruvian/Latin American hisory and contemporary U.S/Latin American/Peruvian politics (Ollanta Humala, Andrés Avelino Cáceres, TeleSur, Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru, etc...) I should create a flood of 9/11 truth POV articles. Maybe that would allow me to be considered a "valuable user" by these people.--Jersey Devil 00:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

More defamation, personal attacks, accusations of 'followers' against Striver and his character. You were admonished by the community not to engage in this sort of rhetoric. By the way, what you SAW, I saw on CNN - heard on Coast to Coast AM - read on numerous investigative websites - and is supported by a leading panel of PHD's. A little on that page you SAW. --Northmeister 15:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer to query re: Deletionist guild

I found a group of deletionists represented on meta at [[4]]. I agree, something needs to be done about the vast, inclusionist conspiracy. As long as stuff is kept by default rather than deleted, we face an uphill battle. I've found that articles dealing with pornography, sex jokes, and bodily functions are especially hard to get deleted, and they turn Wikipedia into the reference equivalent of a dirty gas station restroom. I've found that prevention can be helpful. If you find out about a fad, in-joke, or slang term that some joker out there is likely to write about, create it preemptively as a redirect to an already established article. I made Big Buckin' Chicken a redirect to prevent another article like The Subservient Chicken. Good luck. Brian G. Crawford 20:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

That is what is going on in the afd on "Charlie Sheen Interview....". Meatpuppetry occurs when some user asks other users on a forum to vote a certain way in an afd. Guys with less then ten edits "all of a sudden" see this afd and vote "strong keep", complete nonsense.--Jersey Devil 23:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you add the unsigned w/talk contribs? I only know {{unsigned|username}} (where the username is pasted in). I think there's also some template to paste onto the user's talk page to recommend they sign their posts too? Esquizombi 23:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I add them manually; I don't know about the user recommendation tempate. --Mmx1 23:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Found Template talk:Unsigned for the first, not sure about the second, though MediaWiki talk:Talkpagetext comes close. Esquizombi 00:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi, i wonder what is your suggested title for a article regarding this article? --Striver 10:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, Rainbow Six? (A joke, it mirrors the plot of the bad guys in that book). It's a nonevent that really doesn't justify an article. I'll read it more carefully later but I have seen the article before and skimmed it and really don't think the guy's notable in any regard. --Mmx1 19:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider your vote to delete Adaptation to global warming article

I was "bold" and extracted the "adaptation" text from the Mitigation of global warming article into a new article Adaptation of global warming as suggested by others in the Talk:Mitigation of global warming page.

Within minutes, the new article was put up as a candidate for deletion on the grounds that it was a "how-to" article which violated WP:NOT or that it was original research which violated WP:NOR. Other people said that it was not encyclopedic.

The "how-to" criticism was off-the-mark because the article was never intended to be a "how-to". The skimpiness of the text and the section titles suggested that it was a "how-to" but it was never meant to be that.

The "unencyclopedic" charge was valid since the initial text extracted from the Mitigation of global warming article was very sketchy. I have addressed these issues by expanding the article significantly and providing references to sources.

Several of the active contributors to global warming articles have voted to keep the article.

Would you take a look at current version of the Adaptation to global warming article and then consider voting to keep the article?

Thanks.

Richard 18:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

File:1000000eme.jpg

Yet another sysop rolls off the conveyor belt, thanks you for your help, and excuses himself for a few days while he practices his new abilities. Back in action soon! -- Hoary 10:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I mistook you for MONGO, really. It was an unintentional error on my part. Please forgive my mistake.

I'm not sure what you meant when you said most New Yorkers believe the USG was complicit in the WTC attacks, what is meant by USG? And is this something you just picked up from being in New York, or was there a poll or something? ...and, not meaning to pry, but did you lose anyone on 9/11? (I did...). I wish there was some way I could help you understand what my point of view really is, I love Wikipedia, and I hate to see theories accepted as facts, since so many people use Wikpedia as a major source of knowledge. My recent, perhaps rash edit was just flailing out at what I see as "theories accepted as facts": if such-and-such theory is accepted as 'fact', then why is this other theory considered 'nutjab conspiracy whacko ravings'...

Anyway, please accept my apology for getting you mixed up in my head with that other user.Pedant 23:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a Zogby poll that 50% (got the number wrong) of New Yorkers felt the U.S. Government (USG)"knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act,". My offense is not that you would mistake me for MONGO, as I'm in agreement with him - it's at your accusations of "government censorship". I'm an officer candidate in the Marine Corps, and I will soon be "working for the man" again, so any remark you make against government agents or the military I do take personally.

The status quo as of 9-11 was to negotiate and delay, as was the practice for every hijacking up to that point. It was assumed that hijackings were for the sake of killing/capturing the passengers, as was also the practice. While the idea of using the jets as a weapon had been tossed around (including by Rick Rescorla, Morgan Stanley's secruity chief, who perished in the towers), it was not a widely held view and certainly was not the standing order to treat hijackings as potential weapons. That's why the first three hijackings were so successful - the passengers assumed they'd eventually land and be bargained for. I know what happened that day, and the rantings of conspiracy theorists are pseudoscience at their worst, and I will not allow these false claims be given equal footing now matter how loud their proponents shout. --Mmx1 23:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not a 'jab at you' or 'some theory' that US government personnel are editing wikipedia. It's a known fact. I don't think its appropriate for a member of the Dept. of Homeland Security to edit articles in the 9/11 spectrum, especially when he uses his 'status' as a part of that dept. to influence other editors that he is some sort of expert and has more knowlege about it than others. (that was about MONGO) I'm a veteran, having served in a perilous, sensitive and potent segment of the military, but what I signed on to protect and defend was the United States, and its Constitution, but certainly not to defend the indefensible actions of subsets of its government and people who are intentionally misusing its government to further their own agenda. The idea of using aircraft as a weapon has been more than 'tossed around', the idea is actually hundreds of years older than aircraft, aircraft were used as weapons at Pearl Harbor, but then I am pretty sure you know this, because I have read many of your valuable contributions you've made to the 'air war constellation' of articles. Its nice that you "know" what happened that day, apparently you have more information about it than the 9/11 commission, which didn't presume to make that claim. I'm not trying to get into some fight with you, I'm only pointing out that you are may benefit from trying harder to maintain an open mind. (how else will you improvise, adapt and overcome?) You might surprise yourself at what you may discover about the world around you. Don't take anything I say about the 9/11 conspiracy personally, I'm not blaming you for it at all. Pedant 21:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The use of civilian airliners as weapons was definitely a new wrinkle, because Rescorla couldn't convince anyone to take his theories seriously. We certainly were not at the point where we were willing to shoot hijacked airliners on sight - the decision to do so that day wasn't easy, even given what happened in New York. I know what happened because I can critically analyze the facts. All you conspiracy theorists can do is snipe away at the theory with allegations, only to back down in the face of the facts. You were shouting about how orders to shoot were violated and willfully disobeyed. That's bullshit. There were no such orders.

I'm a scientist by training, and I can spot bullshit a mile away. Who are the ones trying to pass off nuclear physicists and water testers as some sort of "authorities" on building collapse? Do I have an open mind, yes. Have I rejected the crap that's been thrown around? Repeatedly. Trust me, I've heard it all. You're not the first guy to have come to wiki with the bright idea that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel so AHA! it must have been demolitions.

BTW, it's very convenient for this debate that you lost a friend in the attacks and served "in a perilous, sensitive and potent segment of the military." Frankly, I don't know anyone whose described their service like that, and I have busted posers who've talked like you. This is the internet and I don't really care to ask for a DD214, but please, don't rip on MONGO for being a fed and then try to claim some sympathy because you're also a vet. --Mmx1 04:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The CIA and September 11 (book)

I hate pestering people's talk pages about AFD votes (or votes at all... it's very bad form really) but I've just done a huge amount of work on this article, and it is probably 80% different from when you voted. I have found a large number of English language references, and I have used <cite> so any reader or editor can identify where each individual statement in the article came from. That ought to deal with WP:V and WP:RS. As for notability, you can make your own decision: the relevant guideline says "Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify". If you rank this as below an average cookbook, I'm not going to argue with you :) TheGrappler 04:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland steamer

I noticed you didn't vote on the AfD for Cleveland steamer and I'd appreciate your input. If you need my input on any juvenile humor related articles like fart alarm, I'd be happy to help. Brian G. Crawford 23:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry bro, it slipped through. I haven't been as active this week. --Mmx1 03:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Bowman

You're welcome to try to investigate his claims further; I'd be curious to know what the truth is (particularly regarding his church). I'm not interested in defending him, I think we just need to be careful for WP's (and our) sake. What are the awards on his uniform in the picture on his campaign site[5], can you tell? Шизомби 21:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not AF nor am I old enough to recognize his insignia, but I know just the place to ask. --Mmx1 21:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Do insignias change a lot over time? I would have thought for reasons of tradition they would not change them. Anyway, you might find this link interesting (find Michael Scott's post): http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060403081040621 Not one we could use since AFAIK since it's a response to a blog posting (not very notable as sources go), but it does indicate others are meeting some of the claims with skepticism too. Шизомби 23:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Regulations do change; I'm not sure what the device above his wings is but I don't think it's in current usage. The photo's real sketchy and without the colors it'd be hard to tell. His claims are pretty transparent to anyone with a critical eye, so I'm not surprised he's been outed before. Since he's not outright lying (well, the SAME thing needs proof), it's not as big a deal when he's outed, unlike the posers who fake military service.

I went through the evidence Michael Scott posted and found this: [6]. I think this is pretty damning of his not having won the award. It lists all the winners up to 2004. --Mmx1 23:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That's the link I'd already added to Bowman's article on April 4th.[7] As I said, it does appear to contradict his claim, but there might be other possible explanations. Again, contact SAME as I did if you like. Шизомби 00:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof

Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You've been added to the list of authorized users, and feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page if you have any questions. - Glen ^T _C 07:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9-11: The Road to Tyranny (2nd nomination)

I don't know if you have a watch on this AFD. I did find some relatively minor things mentioning the movie alone, but more interestingly IMO a course with the same name that used the movie as one of its materials. I put some of them in the AFD and some on the talk page for the AFD, but then compiled them all on the talk page for the article. There's a fair amount of coverage for the course, both critical and praiseworthy (more the former). At a minimum, for your own interest take a look at the archived pages that belonged to the professor. It's surprising to discover a college would have tolerated that kind of stuff on their site, even allowing for the exercise of free speech. I think a college course covering conspiratorial ideas on the web could be pretty interesting, but one that was so approving would have been uncomfortable at best.

As for interpretation, which you mentioned in the AFD, I think that tends towards OR. A thing a viewer thinks they see or hear that another viewer might not, or a meaning they believe is suggested all would seem to be OR. However, I think quoting, describing, summarizing are all OK. It does seem some kinds of interpretation are allowed though, since when translations can't be found for something wikipedians can make them. Шизомби 16:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft Infobox

I will personally continue to not use infoboxes, but as the wikipedia is addicted to them it's highly unlikely that WP:Air will last much longer without one. However. If one is to exist - and I don't see why it will not, unfortunately - we need to have as much input on it as possible. Thanks for your input so far, and I'd appreciate it if we can keep the discussions a little more civil and a lot less heated for the future - I'm guilty of this as well. ericg ✈ 20:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-spec infobox consensus

I started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft to reach consensus on the non-specs infobox for aircraft articles. Please voice your opinion! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your efforts in dealing with User:Borisknezevic, he has a "heavy" problem with dealing in POV. Get it? OK it's bad humor, but oh well. Thanks. Rmt2m 01:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation on WTC core

Hi Mmx1,

You may have missed it on 'Collapse...' article amoung all that chatter about thermite, but here is the citation on the load bearing of the core:

Cite the "other side" that says the core was the primary weight-bearing structure, because I haven't seen it. --Mmx1 16:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Inside the outer tube there was a 27m x 40m core, which was designed to support the weight of the tower", from "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Journal of Materials, etc 53 (12) 2001 pp8-11 (An article which makes the case that the towers fell due to warping. The original 'pancake' article) (link) Seabhcán 08:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one: "This framed tube [Outer wall] carried all wind loads. The floors spanned without intermediate columns to the core, which was supported on 44 box-section columns designed and detailed to carry vertical loading only." from "Collapse of the World Trade Centre Towers", by G Charles Clifton, HERA Structural Engineer. [8]

These two citations are taken from articles already referenced in the Collapse wiki-article. Seabhcán 10:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is from the NIST report: "The primary function of the core columns was to carry the building gravity loads. The exterior columns resisted wind loads and, in addition, carried approximately half of the gravity loads." page xlvii (49) NIST NCSTAR 1-6. Seabhcán 11:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

And for reference, this is what the 9/11 commission says: "In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart. These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped."

Does NIST's 'approximately 50%' match the commission's 'most'? Lets not argue about it. Lets just include it all in the article and let the reader decide. Seabhcán 11:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

About 50% and "most" are not exclusive as both are approximations - moreover, the 9-11 Commission does NOT derive technical conclusions about the collapse - its only reference is in a FOOTNOTE! You're grasping at straws here. --Mmx1 20:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR Violation Warning

Please note you are at risk of violating 3RR: [9], [10], and [11]

Revert wars are generally considered unproductive, in poor taste and are against Wikipedia policy. As you know, I lost my cool and rv twice also. I won't do it again. This is what Talk was made for. In the future, please refrain from engaging in revert wars. I will do my best to do the same. --Digiterata 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please take a moment, pause and relax Mmx1. You've just made your 4th revert today [12]

Wikipedia will still be here tomorrow. You might want to consider a cooling off period. 3RR exists for a reason. To protect us from ourselves. I realize that you care deeply about this issue, but this behaviour has to stop. --Digiterata 20:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, spare me the fucking drama. That edit was unrelated to my reverts of your additions, and while it may not qualify as simple vandalism, your and elfguy's edits do. --Mmx1 21:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I know we disagree on certain issues, but I've gone out of my way to be respectful of you. Please apologize for littering my user:talk page with swearing. I don't appreciate it. You'll note that I didn't report your 3RR violation. My intent was not to get you in trouble, but to try and get you to think about what you are doing to the Wikipedia community. Not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy. Some of us just want to maintain the good standards of Wikipedia. If you disagree with my opinions, fine. But please watch what you say. I don't delete comments from by User page and now I'm stuck with the big f*** on it. --Digiterata 21:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I've removed it from your talk page. As for 3RR, I still think it's a bullshit allegation and you're welcome to report me. If not edit warring is such a priority for you, why continue reinserting Elfguy's edits without discussion when two editors have independently reverted his misuse of tags? There's something very hypocritical about admonishing people about edit warring and reverting without discussion while continuing to do so yourself. --Mmx1

You'll notice that I never revert without explaining why either on subject line or Talk (usually both) Also, I don't agree that he misused tags as I have also put up that tag in the past. This is a controversial and hotly disputed topic. The purpose of the Tag is to warn a casual user of that fact. While you might not like it, the topic is disputed, just look at the talk. It's not warm flowery praise and criticism of where to add or remove a pronoun, it is an ongoing (like 2 years) debate about 2 things: The factual accuracy of the article, and the POV bias. Whether or not you think those debates are valid, the fact that there is as much text in Talk as there is clearly indicates that they are debated. And I didn't ask you to remove your comment, only to apologize for making it. Big difference. --Digiterata 21:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because you and every other conspiracy theorist decides that wiki is a soapbox for your alternative views does not mean that there is notable dispute over the facts presented, no more than allegations about whether or not we landed on the Moon mean we have to slap a disputed tag on Apollo 11. The use of that tag after failure to gain consensus for one's edits (as you and Elfguy have experience) is not a reason to put up the tag. --Mmx1 22:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's not throw names around though. MMx1, I respect your opinions and I hope you can extend the same courtesy, and I think you can agree that, without regard to the truth on the matter itself, the article is under dispute. The scale of an article should not be a consideration when placing a disputed tag upon it; only if it is, or is not, under dispute.

The way I see it, after reading the (Extensive and frustrating) talk page on 9/11, the argument is split between two factions of approximately equal size (In this assertion I ignore the one-off contributers, there lies madness). If that doesn't constitute dispute, what does? Now, I'm not advocating wholesale rearrangement of the 9/11 page, but by the mandate of your own country, everyone is entitled to their say, and in this case that say is being blocked, harassed, and belittled without evaluation beyond the assignment of a tag ("Conspiracy Theory"). I know this is not your personal intent, and I am sure you personally have never intended to violate said mandate, but as a point of fact, it is a constant response to the contributions of the Truth Movement. All any of us want is a consensus and an analysis of the facts, and I personally believe that we can achieve consensus with peaceable conversation better than inflamed statements and reticent refusal to consider one another's POV.

I am personally in favour of the tag being placed on the page, as that is the purpose of the tag: To warn the user of a dispute about facts. I hope you can reconsider your stance on the matter. Thanks for reading! - Cathal Patriotism is the root of modern atrocity

User notice: temporary 3RR block

====Regarding reversions[13] made on May 1 2006 (UTC) to September 11, 2001 attacks====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 21:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Appeal

• first revert
• second revert
• third revert
• Fourth revert

William: regarding the following from WP:Vandalism, under Improper use of dispute tags

Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in 
when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has 
failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus.

If you look at the first three edits in question, all three were regarding an improper use of the dispute tag. Following failure to gain consensus for their edits, Elfguy and Digiteria resorted to using the Dispute tag to voice their disapproval - which by the above is simple vandalism and reversion of such does not qualify for 3RR. Two other editors (both admins) have independently reverted the tags in question and I feel that is sufficient consensus that the actions I reverted consitute vandalism.

I admit that on the surface my removal of tags appears to be a violation of 3RR but given the context of the users who placed the tag and the history of this page, it is appropriate to label the actions I reverted to be vandalism.

Furthermore, the fourth edit, while not such a clear-cut example of reverting simple vandalism, can also be arguably considered to be vandalism (as upheld by other editors who have reverted the same edits prior and after my reverts) and furthermore is wholly unrelated to the previous three edits. Given the activity and frequency of vandalism on this page I feel it is reasonable consider the fourth separately from the first three. In this case an editor continually inserted her edits despite no consensus on the talk page, without participating in the discussion on the talk page, and with false and misleading edit summaries [14].. Given these examples, I feel my edits were good faith reverts of vandalism and ought not be counted under 3RR. --Mmx1 22:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry. There is no free pass on 3RR for removing tags, only for simple vandalism which this definitely wasn't. If the tags were wildly inappropriate, then someone else would have removed them (this answer is the answer to almost any I-needed-to-break-3RR type reason). William M. Connolley 08:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 18:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 00:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC) maybe you should check out the vote to relist or etc at the er ummm... vote for deletion contemplation page er...

Wikipedia:Deletion Review --Mmx1 00:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

yeah, that. Prometheuspan 00:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Deletion review

hey, i hear ya there, but my point is, these people are obviously ignoring basic facts. A link is easy to ignore just like they ignore therest of everything. a nice full page article on the other hand makes being an intentional ignoramus a little harder. Prometheuspan 01:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You can summarize the article without pasting ALL of it. Having to scroll through several pages just to find people's comments is very annoying and not conducive to discussion --Mmx1 01:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 01:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC) okay, i'll try for summaries. Are you requesting this to be retrocative? maybe you would like to demonstrate what you think a good summary size would be with the 3 articles?

Less than a screen? The assertion seems to be self-explanatory - that three states are initiating impeachment proceedings of some sort; the links are just proof. Moreover since they're editorials, reposting them would constitute soapboxing. --Mmx1 01:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 02:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Okay, you got me there. I hope you can appreciate my frustration with all of this noise, and see the need to get some facts straight.

as long as i am here;

I did have a link so that people could find it. (Archive) It was deleted. Not my fault. Sorry bout the capitalization. By the way, merecat unarchived it all, so theres no point right now. Prometheuspan 02:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comment at my talk in regard to Bush impeachment

Consensus to delete an article is approximately 2/3, and this article met that criterion. Protecting an archived AfD or RfA is what is highly irregular. I believe that Cyde both decided this wrongly and protected the page inappropriately. I have no intention of removing my appropriate comment. -- Cecropia 02:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I unprotected the AfD (with appropriate notice on the talk page) so that point is now moot. The nature of my edit was appropriate--it did not alter the voting and I stand by the comment. -- Cecropia 03:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I had no problems with your comments (in fact I agreed with the first ones that I saw); but the process seemed irregular to me). --Mmx1 03:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I have no idea what is in Cyde's head on this one. You probably have already noticed that I formally reopened the discussion. -- Cecropia 03:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

URGENT! Your vote needed

Come vote here please to decide this important matter! i trust that you'll make the right decision--Rictonilpog 17:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User No Marxism

Hi! According to list [15] you are one of those many who have been using the template. Unfortunately it has been deleted again by certain admins; a discussion is being held here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#Template:User_No_Marxism. You might express your opinion there, as well as other users of this template.--Constanz - Talk 06:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This is going to amuse you

For defending Wikipedia against blatently POV 9/11 truth hawks. In particular for reverting edits by Mr. James H. Fetzer of Scholars for 9/11 truth which prompted this reaction, amongst countless other efforts to stop POV hawks in similar articles. Keep up the good work and remember whatever the cost may be, we shall fight them on the mainspace, we shall fight on the rfcs, we shall fight in the talkpages and in the afds, we shall fight in the AbrComs; we shall never surrender!--Jersey Devil 07:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)]

Wikipedia: What it Doesn't Say

I have just spent several frustrating hours trying to revise and improve the entry on "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", only to discover that my rewrites were being over-ridden by someone at Wikipedia. I find that offensive. The present entry has a warning label stating, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." From what I can discern from reviewing the "Talk Page", persons with scant or biased knowledge of the society appear to be determining the contents. So I agree with the warning but not for the reasons that may have motivated it. Here is what I tried to post in its place.

James H. Fetzer Founder and Co-Chair Scholars for 9/11 Truth [16]

So then I go to the article and see this revert of Fetzer's edit by you. Good work as it was obviously this person trying to assert his mass POV on the article.--Jersey Devil 06:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Fetzer giving a speech. [17]--Jersey Devil 06:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see this, User talk:Pablo-flores#False Edit Summaries.--Jersey Devil 09:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Hi. I would like to inform you of this afd:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Joseph Watson --Striver 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

You're quite the good sort.

The Original Barnstar {{ subst:For being a really nice guy.|message Brian G. Crawford 06:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC) }}

We've been mentioned in the Blogosphere

Here is a link[18] to a blog post where an anonymous poster talks about how we're ruining the 9/11 pages, and mentions you, me and some other users by name. Enjoy.--DCAnderson 04:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

HEAT

Oops, and another oops. Clearly, my interest is not in military stuff. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

THUNDER

[19] SkeenaR 00:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I believe the exclusionism your showing on B1-b and Comanche are acts of vandalism. Will you agree to dispute resolution through the Wikipedia:Mediation process? --Supercoop 20:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No. --Mmx1 20:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI - I added the start of RfC process on the Talk:RAH-66 Comanche. Don’t forget to review the information and add anything you see necessary. RfC should be avoided and wont be necessary if there isn't a disagreement. --Supercoop 22:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mostly unrelated but I thought of you would like to laugh when I deleted this. So maybe we can let bygones be bygones because if because if you feel the damage to articles with the game/movie cruft is the same as I see it with the wiki spam then I will look at things with a diffrent perspective. --Supercoop 19:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Berg, back up

Given your previous interest Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Berg conspiracy theories (3rd nomination) Morton devonshire 23:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA

I notcied that you've left messages for Cool3 on his talk page, so I thought you mihgt want to vote in his RfA at WP:RFA. ShortJason 15:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

F-14

In the F-14 article I removed several things from the pop culture section, and I disagree with your reinsertion of them. I removed cameos in anime that are unimportant even in the anime like "character happens to be qualified F-14 pilot", or "flies around in what looks like F-14" or they just make a cameo appearance. These appearances don't change public opinion (as Top Gun did, and they don't play a very big role in these appearances. I plan on removing these if I don't hear back from you on why they should stay. LWF 02:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq and the War on Terrorism

Wikipedia:WOT is up for vote now. Rangeley 15:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've warned the anon IP we've been having a discussion with to maintain civility; he may be able to engage in civil discourse, provided we can get past what is now devolving into a lexicon battle. So keep cool and the IP will soon either be civil, or really really quiet. JDoorjam Talk 17:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

9/11

Please stop reverting the article because you disagree with the tag I added. Before reverting, changes should be discussed in the talk page, which you didn't do. Also warning me about the rrr rule is uneeded, as I've been editing here for as long as you have and know the policies. I hope you will no longer feel the need to be confrontational and use the talk pages more from now on. Elfguy 17:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Steven E. Jones

in response to [20]

please stop deleting tags at will.

Those tags were originally chosen by Morton devonshire, who made the following change first. [21]

Anyone making such a change should not be editing wikipedia.

Your own comments ("conspiracy theorist") is harassment and not professional. Using that term shows that you are not taking the issue seriously. Therefore, you should not be editing these 9/11 pages. CB Brooklyn 03:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)