This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Thank you very much for the barnstar! I am very sorry it took so long for me to thank you; I have been on a rather long wikibreak. And thank you as well for making some cleanup edits on the page! Cheers, Rai- me 20:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Okie; the article doesn't say it represents "expert belief", it suggests it is reporting undisputed truth.
When it comes to the collapse physics, it stands to reason to rely heavily on the opinion of engineers. (But then I would also like to mention the testimony of a Dutch demolition expert who claims that WTC7 must have been demolished, as apparent from the footage.) But for the entire subject: "9/11", what would be the appropriate scientific discipline? Physics? Psychology? Aerodynamics? Criminology? Arabists? Economics? Political science? Chemistry?
Scientists are only humans. American scientists would need a lot of guts to stand up and say something is wrong at this level. Foreign scientists are often involved in programmes which have ties to American interests; or they might not be interested. This produces an enormous amount of
systemic bias and
selection bias, and when you do not acknowledge that problem, you may be prown to
circular reasoning.
I'm not complaining about RS, I'm trying to figure out why you believe we should follow their opinion - I'm satisfied to stick with the facts. —
Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪
(speech has the power to bind the absolute)
01:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
A RS is not needed to prove that a cover-up is one of many possible reasons for officials refusing to testify under oath. It's common sense: political figures refusing to testify happens all the time. Your personal conclusion is very wide speculation. Your statement: "there is merit for informing our readers about facts, even when we are unable to tell them what those facts mean" violates a key component of our encyclopedia: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't include all facts just because they are facts. They must be notable and relevant to the article, and they have not been established as such. // About the Mineta testimony, your analogy is simply wrong. You are assuming that your beliefs about 9/11 are true, and it shows. One conflicting testimony out of hundreds is simply irrelevant; people are fallible, they forget things, misspeak, etc. Mineta even said that he didn't know for sure what Cheney was referring to; Mineta was merely speculating that it could have been about the attacks. How is Mineta’s speculation important to this broad topic article about the attacks? // First of all, there can't be molten steel without steel melting first. Molten and melted are referring to the same thing; second of all, I have seen no reliable source saying there was molten steel, do you have any? Thirdly, I fail to see how molten steel being found at the site is relevant. Your interpretation of the discovery of molten steel is not enough to prove notability on Wikipedia. We must have reliable sources make such a conclusion, or it would violate WP:OR. Right now, we must assume that the melted steel is not important unless there is a scientific RS saying it is an abnormality and coming to a conclusion. // Once again, criticizing reliable sources has no place here and shows your tendentious editing mentality. If every reliable source in the world is biased, then Wikipedia must also be biased because of our fundamental policy that we don't strive for truth, just verifiability. Reliable sources are the only way to verify things. // "What I wish to include are undisputed facts" — yes, but they must also be relevant facts. If you want to take trivial facts like political figures not testifying, or molten steel being found, you must provide reliable sources to prove they are important and worth mentioning. Once again, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Okiefromokla questions? 21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have been out of commission the last few days and despite attempts to make sense of the mass of different discussions on the 9/11 talk page, I have little clue about what's going on or why the article has been fully protected. Could you possibly summarize things for me, or point me to the relevant dispute? I would appreciate it... Thanks. Okiefromokla questions? 04:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel this way, Okie. The discussion is not long by my doing alone. If you feel I should follow the guidelines, quote them. I am following all of them. I think there is no guideline that a fact would need not only be RS based for it's existence, but also for it's importance. The importance is to be assessed by the editors. Some call such assesment, erroneously, OR. I can understand how you feel, because you have been reading misrepresented guidelines for years, perhaps, but the real guidelines... please quote. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Suppose a UFO landed on the lawn of the white house, and CNN and all the press covered it live. Then suppose after a week no RS ever mentioned it again. Would wikipedia have an article on the landing? Would we allowed to mention the landing in the UFO article? Or in the White House article? I'm curious how you feel in this example. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I am replying to a comment you just left for me in regards to what I posted on the Discussion page of the 9-11 article. I was merely stating that 9-11 was an inside job, there is literally a mountain of evidence to prove it beyond any doubt. I am curious as to why the page doesn't even mention this as a possibility at the very least. As of now the page fully supports the official propaganda and I thought Wikipedia was supposed to stick to the facks. Neurolanis ( talk) 16:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I should be addressing this reply to your recent reply here or elsewhere, but I had intended my comment for the article. If you would like me to list off the evidence which proves it was an inside job I would be glad to do so, with credible sources of course. If this is satisfactory, would you like me to post it here or elsewhere? Neurolanis ( talk) 00:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, me again. I just posted a sub-section on the 9-11 Conspiracy for consideration on the 9-11 Attacks page and after only five minutes it has a negative mark against it. I was wondering if you'd like to read it? Neurolanis ( talk) 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's become a problem, but I'm not sure where to go with it. Unless you have a concrete suggestion (topic ban, block, whatever), AN/I is pretty ineffective when it comes to general complaints (even when justified as it is in this case). Unless we have a specific course of action I'd suggest telling him there's an RFC in his immediate future if he doesn't start acting a little more reasonable. RFC's aren't the most effective thing in the world but it's a clearer way to show that there's a consensus that he's acting WP:TE. In it you can lay out what he needs to do to resolve the issues and so on. Also, it's a first step in dispute resolution that needs to be taken in case it goes that far. I don't think AN/I will help at this point... RxS ( talk) 22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
For some background. take a look at his first 50 edits [3] back in January-February 2006. Those were edits to the Oklahoma City bombing page, pushing Alex Jones conspiracy theories there. He was also on my talk page back then. I don't have patience to keep arguing with him after 2+ years, and devote so much time to the 9/11 talk page. I simply can't keep up with all his talk page posts, but glad that you and others are able to help handle it. With the "mediation" on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page likely to fail, I wouldn't be surprised to see this all eventually go to ArbCom. I think Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final_decision is somewhat of a precedent for this, which resulted in people banned from editing certain topics, as well as "principles". For now, I agree with RxS that an RFC might be a good step at this point. -- Aude ( talk) 03:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Draw up the Rfc and there will be plenty of those who have diffs. He seems to be very civil so that is a plus, so maybe if he sees that his termagant efforts to force CT into these articles is now more than tedious, he'll make some adjustments.-- MONGO 09:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Okie, got your note. I will do what I can to collect some material as I get time. It seems like he's slowed up a bit I'll start to put something together, especially if he starts up again. Thanks for thinking about this. RxS ( talk) 04:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear all, yes please get xiutwel blocked, I have not had sex for the last four weeks....: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png Just kidding.— Vanja МИР (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could please stop by here to offer some insight on the edit war consuming the 9/11 page. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe all of us are devoted to solving these issues, because it is no game we're playing here, with these articles. We're talking about an event that has taken the lives of many people and of an event that has led to the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, where violence continues to the present day. Sharing a common view and respecting each others differing views is essential in bringing more peace in the world. I need this article to be respectful to all views. I am needing respect for uniqueness of human beings and the views they hold dear.
Dear Okiefromokla,
At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:
I would appreciate it when you could take a look. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey just thought I would let you know the Oklahoma Portal was promoted March 14, 2008.-- CPacker ( talk) 05:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer ( talk) 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
five people have already posted that on the talk page. Do you need another five before you accept consensus on that? You need to re-title that section immediately at the very least. 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 03:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
this is what I saw on that page:
"In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged"
dahoy. what did you see ? 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 03:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey thanks for signing my guest book but where is yours??? [WHY DID I GIVE YOU MY HEART?.] ♠ [TAY♥] [SAy iT.] 15:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
Thanks for the note, feel free to adjust the figures in my table on the evidence page. I'll make a note that I asked you to make the changes if you want. RxS ( talk) 05:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've submitted an oversight request for the outing of Coz. So if it is accepted and your reversions of the outing disappear, that's why. -- Bobblehead (rants) 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It's amazing how much the context changes when one forgets to remove a word. [4] Thanks for the update. -- Bobblehead (rants) 04:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
how is the paragraph about Oklahoma Today vandalism. It was cited and factual. It added to the information in a completely unbiased way. What's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrown84 ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not work for Oklahoma Today, nor do I have any connection with them. It is not just some random magazine, it is the official magazine of the state of Oklahoma. It has a circulation in all 50 states. --jbrown84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrown84 ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can Edit is the core principle of wikipedia. If there is something you feel is inappropriate on my user page, please feel free to edit it in such a way as to make it appropriate. Thanks for your contributions. It's nice to make your acquaintance, and I look forward to working with you further. User:Pedant ( talk) 06:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Will do, I plan on nominating Penn. pretty soon, but im still adding articles and finish a few things, but when its ready ill give you a heads up, Thanks -- CPacker ( talk) 05:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I had to think about it for a second too. I thought "well Boston must be bigger" so I was about to add Boston when I thought of a couple more, until I realized that a lot more were bigger. Don't worry about the mistake though, it's understandable. Soy Milk Jim ( talk) 06:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh, thanks, but I'm a lot less fired up than people think I am. I'm actually quite calm in real life. Anyway, I appreciate the advice, I just wanted to once take a stronger approach to the troll. -- Tarage ( talk) 05:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
What's up? I noticed that you have been involved in editing the Clayton Bennett article in the past, and I also noticed that you have had to deal with user:Coz 11 in the past. You can check out the article's talk page and my own talk page to see what's going on. If you would like to help bring some perspective to editing that article or to the discussions, it would be much appreciated. Chicken Wing ( talk) 23:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, my username may appear weird. It's Japanese. Obento is a lunch box, and musubi are rice balls. :) – Obento Musubi ( C • G • S) 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure Stern's support for Bennett's stance is necessary for the lead, could you move it down to the body of article and add a source for it? It's definitely "worthy" of inclusion there, IMHO, I'm just unsure of the necessity in the lead. -- Bobblehead (rants) 17:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You might want to read that ref again.
Gridiron football was the creation of elite American universities, a fact that has shaped its distinctive role in American culture and life. After several decades of informal, student-organized games that were tolerated by faculty as an alternative to more destructive rowdiness, the first intercollegiate football game was played on November 6, 1869, in New Brunswick, New Jersey, between in-state rivals Princeton and Rutgers according to rules adapted from those of the London Football Association. This soccer-style game became the dominant form as Columbia, Cornell, Yale, and a few other colleges in the Northeast took up the sport in the early 1870s, and in 1873 representatives from Princeton, Yale, and Rutgers met in New York City to found the Intercollegiate Football Association and to adopt a common code. Conspicuously missing was Harvard, the country's premier university, whose team insisted on playing the so-called “Boston Game,” a cross between soccer and rugby. In May 1874, in the second of two matches with McGill University of Montreal (the first was played by the rules of the Boston Game), Harvard's players were introduced to the rugby game and immediately preferred it to their own. The following year, for Harvard's first football contest with Yale, representatives of the two schools agreed on “concessionary rules” that were chiefly Harvard's. When spectators (including Princeton students) as well as Yale players saw the advantages of the rugby style, the stage was set for a meeting in 1876 of representatives from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia to form a new Intercollegiate Football Association based on rugby rules.
Football was introduced by McGill to Harvard who then played Yale, and so on. Before that they were playing soccer-style games. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 04:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 20:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I was actually going to talk to you and see what you thought about me getting a better photo of Tulsa, one during the day to replace this photo---
Hey there was an edit by User:Nyttend that says tulsa extends into Osage and Rogers county, is that true? Im putting citation needed but it needs to be cited or removed. Let me know what you think, Thanks-- CPacker ( talk) 15:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, It looks like im going to go Friday if everything works out. So Ill see what I can do -- CPacker ( talk) 02:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Thank you very much for the barnstar! I am very sorry it took so long for me to thank you; I have been on a rather long wikibreak. And thank you as well for making some cleanup edits on the page! Cheers, Rai- me 20:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Okie; the article doesn't say it represents "expert belief", it suggests it is reporting undisputed truth.
When it comes to the collapse physics, it stands to reason to rely heavily on the opinion of engineers. (But then I would also like to mention the testimony of a Dutch demolition expert who claims that WTC7 must have been demolished, as apparent from the footage.) But for the entire subject: "9/11", what would be the appropriate scientific discipline? Physics? Psychology? Aerodynamics? Criminology? Arabists? Economics? Political science? Chemistry?
Scientists are only humans. American scientists would need a lot of guts to stand up and say something is wrong at this level. Foreign scientists are often involved in programmes which have ties to American interests; or they might not be interested. This produces an enormous amount of
systemic bias and
selection bias, and when you do not acknowledge that problem, you may be prown to
circular reasoning.
I'm not complaining about RS, I'm trying to figure out why you believe we should follow their opinion - I'm satisfied to stick with the facts. —
Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪
(speech has the power to bind the absolute)
01:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
A RS is not needed to prove that a cover-up is one of many possible reasons for officials refusing to testify under oath. It's common sense: political figures refusing to testify happens all the time. Your personal conclusion is very wide speculation. Your statement: "there is merit for informing our readers about facts, even when we are unable to tell them what those facts mean" violates a key component of our encyclopedia: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't include all facts just because they are facts. They must be notable and relevant to the article, and they have not been established as such. // About the Mineta testimony, your analogy is simply wrong. You are assuming that your beliefs about 9/11 are true, and it shows. One conflicting testimony out of hundreds is simply irrelevant; people are fallible, they forget things, misspeak, etc. Mineta even said that he didn't know for sure what Cheney was referring to; Mineta was merely speculating that it could have been about the attacks. How is Mineta’s speculation important to this broad topic article about the attacks? // First of all, there can't be molten steel without steel melting first. Molten and melted are referring to the same thing; second of all, I have seen no reliable source saying there was molten steel, do you have any? Thirdly, I fail to see how molten steel being found at the site is relevant. Your interpretation of the discovery of molten steel is not enough to prove notability on Wikipedia. We must have reliable sources make such a conclusion, or it would violate WP:OR. Right now, we must assume that the melted steel is not important unless there is a scientific RS saying it is an abnormality and coming to a conclusion. // Once again, criticizing reliable sources has no place here and shows your tendentious editing mentality. If every reliable source in the world is biased, then Wikipedia must also be biased because of our fundamental policy that we don't strive for truth, just verifiability. Reliable sources are the only way to verify things. // "What I wish to include are undisputed facts" — yes, but they must also be relevant facts. If you want to take trivial facts like political figures not testifying, or molten steel being found, you must provide reliable sources to prove they are important and worth mentioning. Once again, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Okiefromokla questions? 21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have been out of commission the last few days and despite attempts to make sense of the mass of different discussions on the 9/11 talk page, I have little clue about what's going on or why the article has been fully protected. Could you possibly summarize things for me, or point me to the relevant dispute? I would appreciate it... Thanks. Okiefromokla questions? 04:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel this way, Okie. The discussion is not long by my doing alone. If you feel I should follow the guidelines, quote them. I am following all of them. I think there is no guideline that a fact would need not only be RS based for it's existence, but also for it's importance. The importance is to be assessed by the editors. Some call such assesment, erroneously, OR. I can understand how you feel, because you have been reading misrepresented guidelines for years, perhaps, but the real guidelines... please quote. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Suppose a UFO landed on the lawn of the white house, and CNN and all the press covered it live. Then suppose after a week no RS ever mentioned it again. Would wikipedia have an article on the landing? Would we allowed to mention the landing in the UFO article? Or in the White House article? I'm curious how you feel in this example. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I am replying to a comment you just left for me in regards to what I posted on the Discussion page of the 9-11 article. I was merely stating that 9-11 was an inside job, there is literally a mountain of evidence to prove it beyond any doubt. I am curious as to why the page doesn't even mention this as a possibility at the very least. As of now the page fully supports the official propaganda and I thought Wikipedia was supposed to stick to the facks. Neurolanis ( talk) 16:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I should be addressing this reply to your recent reply here or elsewhere, but I had intended my comment for the article. If you would like me to list off the evidence which proves it was an inside job I would be glad to do so, with credible sources of course. If this is satisfactory, would you like me to post it here or elsewhere? Neurolanis ( talk) 00:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, me again. I just posted a sub-section on the 9-11 Conspiracy for consideration on the 9-11 Attacks page and after only five minutes it has a negative mark against it. I was wondering if you'd like to read it? Neurolanis ( talk) 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's become a problem, but I'm not sure where to go with it. Unless you have a concrete suggestion (topic ban, block, whatever), AN/I is pretty ineffective when it comes to general complaints (even when justified as it is in this case). Unless we have a specific course of action I'd suggest telling him there's an RFC in his immediate future if he doesn't start acting a little more reasonable. RFC's aren't the most effective thing in the world but it's a clearer way to show that there's a consensus that he's acting WP:TE. In it you can lay out what he needs to do to resolve the issues and so on. Also, it's a first step in dispute resolution that needs to be taken in case it goes that far. I don't think AN/I will help at this point... RxS ( talk) 22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
For some background. take a look at his first 50 edits [3] back in January-February 2006. Those were edits to the Oklahoma City bombing page, pushing Alex Jones conspiracy theories there. He was also on my talk page back then. I don't have patience to keep arguing with him after 2+ years, and devote so much time to the 9/11 talk page. I simply can't keep up with all his talk page posts, but glad that you and others are able to help handle it. With the "mediation" on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page likely to fail, I wouldn't be surprised to see this all eventually go to ArbCom. I think Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final_decision is somewhat of a precedent for this, which resulted in people banned from editing certain topics, as well as "principles". For now, I agree with RxS that an RFC might be a good step at this point. -- Aude ( talk) 03:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Draw up the Rfc and there will be plenty of those who have diffs. He seems to be very civil so that is a plus, so maybe if he sees that his termagant efforts to force CT into these articles is now more than tedious, he'll make some adjustments.-- MONGO 09:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Okie, got your note. I will do what I can to collect some material as I get time. It seems like he's slowed up a bit I'll start to put something together, especially if he starts up again. Thanks for thinking about this. RxS ( talk) 04:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear all, yes please get xiutwel blocked, I have not had sex for the last four weeks....: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png Just kidding.— Vanja МИР (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could please stop by here to offer some insight on the edit war consuming the 9/11 page. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe all of us are devoted to solving these issues, because it is no game we're playing here, with these articles. We're talking about an event that has taken the lives of many people and of an event that has led to the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, where violence continues to the present day. Sharing a common view and respecting each others differing views is essential in bringing more peace in the world. I need this article to be respectful to all views. I am needing respect for uniqueness of human beings and the views they hold dear.
Dear Okiefromokla,
At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:
I would appreciate it when you could take a look. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey just thought I would let you know the Oklahoma Portal was promoted March 14, 2008.-- CPacker ( talk) 05:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer ( talk) 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
five people have already posted that on the talk page. Do you need another five before you accept consensus on that? You need to re-title that section immediately at the very least. 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 03:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
this is what I saw on that page:
"In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged"
dahoy. what did you see ? 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 03:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey thanks for signing my guest book but where is yours??? [WHY DID I GIVE YOU MY HEART?.] ♠ [TAY♥] [SAy iT.] 15:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
Thanks for the note, feel free to adjust the figures in my table on the evidence page. I'll make a note that I asked you to make the changes if you want. RxS ( talk) 05:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've submitted an oversight request for the outing of Coz. So if it is accepted and your reversions of the outing disappear, that's why. -- Bobblehead (rants) 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It's amazing how much the context changes when one forgets to remove a word. [4] Thanks for the update. -- Bobblehead (rants) 04:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
how is the paragraph about Oklahoma Today vandalism. It was cited and factual. It added to the information in a completely unbiased way. What's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrown84 ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not work for Oklahoma Today, nor do I have any connection with them. It is not just some random magazine, it is the official magazine of the state of Oklahoma. It has a circulation in all 50 states. --jbrown84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrown84 ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can Edit is the core principle of wikipedia. If there is something you feel is inappropriate on my user page, please feel free to edit it in such a way as to make it appropriate. Thanks for your contributions. It's nice to make your acquaintance, and I look forward to working with you further. User:Pedant ( talk) 06:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Will do, I plan on nominating Penn. pretty soon, but im still adding articles and finish a few things, but when its ready ill give you a heads up, Thanks -- CPacker ( talk) 05:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I had to think about it for a second too. I thought "well Boston must be bigger" so I was about to add Boston when I thought of a couple more, until I realized that a lot more were bigger. Don't worry about the mistake though, it's understandable. Soy Milk Jim ( talk) 06:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh, thanks, but I'm a lot less fired up than people think I am. I'm actually quite calm in real life. Anyway, I appreciate the advice, I just wanted to once take a stronger approach to the troll. -- Tarage ( talk) 05:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
What's up? I noticed that you have been involved in editing the Clayton Bennett article in the past, and I also noticed that you have had to deal with user:Coz 11 in the past. You can check out the article's talk page and my own talk page to see what's going on. If you would like to help bring some perspective to editing that article or to the discussions, it would be much appreciated. Chicken Wing ( talk) 23:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, my username may appear weird. It's Japanese. Obento is a lunch box, and musubi are rice balls. :) – Obento Musubi ( C • G • S) 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure Stern's support for Bennett's stance is necessary for the lead, could you move it down to the body of article and add a source for it? It's definitely "worthy" of inclusion there, IMHO, I'm just unsure of the necessity in the lead. -- Bobblehead (rants) 17:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You might want to read that ref again.
Gridiron football was the creation of elite American universities, a fact that has shaped its distinctive role in American culture and life. After several decades of informal, student-organized games that were tolerated by faculty as an alternative to more destructive rowdiness, the first intercollegiate football game was played on November 6, 1869, in New Brunswick, New Jersey, between in-state rivals Princeton and Rutgers according to rules adapted from those of the London Football Association. This soccer-style game became the dominant form as Columbia, Cornell, Yale, and a few other colleges in the Northeast took up the sport in the early 1870s, and in 1873 representatives from Princeton, Yale, and Rutgers met in New York City to found the Intercollegiate Football Association and to adopt a common code. Conspicuously missing was Harvard, the country's premier university, whose team insisted on playing the so-called “Boston Game,” a cross between soccer and rugby. In May 1874, in the second of two matches with McGill University of Montreal (the first was played by the rules of the Boston Game), Harvard's players were introduced to the rugby game and immediately preferred it to their own. The following year, for Harvard's first football contest with Yale, representatives of the two schools agreed on “concessionary rules” that were chiefly Harvard's. When spectators (including Princeton students) as well as Yale players saw the advantages of the rugby style, the stage was set for a meeting in 1876 of representatives from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia to form a new Intercollegiate Football Association based on rugby rules.
Football was introduced by McGill to Harvard who then played Yale, and so on. Before that they were playing soccer-style games. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 04:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 20:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I was actually going to talk to you and see what you thought about me getting a better photo of Tulsa, one during the day to replace this photo---
Hey there was an edit by User:Nyttend that says tulsa extends into Osage and Rogers county, is that true? Im putting citation needed but it needs to be cited or removed. Let me know what you think, Thanks-- CPacker ( talk) 15:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, It looks like im going to go Friday if everything works out. So Ill see what I can do -- CPacker ( talk) 02:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)