Strikethrough indicates redirection.
A blogger has mentioned us and how we're ruining the 9/11 pages [1]. Here's where they mention you:
Here's a typical excerpt from the discussion on there:
QUESTION: "What do you think about this possible new title:
'9/11 skepticism and conspiracy theories'
It would mention both POV and leave the reader free to judge himself what in the article is a conspiracy theory and what is just sketpticism. What do you think?"--Pokipsy76 08:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
ANSWER: "Conspiracy theories and legitimate criticisms are two separate topics; combining them into a signle article which fails to distinguish between the two would represent a loss of information." Peter Grey 15:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC) -- DCAnderson 05:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Good call re the 911CT template. With hindsight it has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Fiddle Faddle 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As one who has been pretty active lately deeling with his edits, what is your feeling on starting a RfC on Lovelight ( talk · contribs)? I noticed this morning that he removed your message to him, and his response to four separate editors reverting his changes on September 11, 2001 attacks is rather revealing. I don't really expect an RfC to go anywhere production, but it is an early step in dispute resolution on the way to arbitration. Thanks. -- StuffOfInterest 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have replied to your question on the 9/11 Truth Movement discussion page and would like to hear your thoughts.
If my definitions are correct, then given your views on this page I would say you are a 'member' of the 9/11 truth movement but NOT the 9/11 Truth Movement. By 'member' I mean 'believer' as there is no 'membership' of the "tm". Corleonebrother 08:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:ArthurAnderson-radio.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Aurora-Browne-1.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 06:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Peter, your opinion on the current disagreement at the collaspe of the WTC article would be much appreciated. MONGO hasn't really made himself very clear.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 14:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Peter,
I expected my revision of the introduction to the 9/11 article to be reversed at some point.
What I'm curious to understand is why my revision of the introduction had to be reversed when what I contributed is more objective and closer to "truth" than what is currently in place, which is attempting to say with certainty and as fact that what happened was an attack by a specific group?
I was not looking to support or promote "conspiracy theories", nor should the revision be seen as an attempt to do so. I was merely trying to improve the article by avoiding its appearing to be merely a reflection of one view, regardless how official the government statements are.
What I find particularly interesting is not so much the truth of what happened, but the manner in which "history" is being negotiated and passed off as truth. What happened, in any circumstance, and how what happened is recorded is not transparent. Three different people at the scene of an accident will not all provide the same details of events. Why? That's just human nature. However, if "one story" is going to be adopted as the official story, who tends to be entrusted to establish that one story? Usually, it's a matter of might vs right. In other words, "to the victor go the spoils". Winners, or, those who are left standing to tell the story, usually get to tell their story to make themselves look like "the good guys" and the other side look like "the bad guys." And, if the might structure has the power to enforce its story, those who oppose it are labelled, ostracized, censured...
The very fact that there is hesitation, nay, fear, to allow an article to be written collaboratively that reflects doubt as to the official story is doubly ironic given the "freedom of speech" concept of American philosophy.
I frankly don't expect you to scratch your chin and say "hmmm, you got a point there, Duane. I'll put your revision back". I'm just writing to let you know that I saw the reversion coming, and am disappointed that people are so willing to accept the official story, regardless of its merit or lack thereof, simply because it is the official story. There are gaps and questions that increasing numbers of reasonable people are asking, and truth should not be afraid to deal with those questions. The American government has, historically, not infrequently found itself in this situation, and at some point people have to wonder why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgaubin ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Like too many other editors who have contributed to the current renaming debate at 9/11 conspiracy theories, you claimed that what "reliable sources" call something is a consideration in choosing names for articles, despite the fact that it had already been pointed out that this was not the case. Please do not misrepresent wikipedia policy and guidelines in this way because it causes a lot of confusion. ireneshusband (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Peter,
on Talk:9/11, you wrote:
If you want to help conclude this debate, then please quote from the guidelines where it says that we can overrule WP:NEUTRAL in cases where we (you) believe that the RS are right in their opinion, and quote where it says that balancing an article with facts from both sides is WP:SYNTHESIS? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
http://911research.com/wtc/analysis/wtc7/speed.html -- you can see that the facade of WTC 7 accelerated downward at very close to the rate of free fall. The difference to the rate of free fall is so small as to be virtually nonexistent. Also, according to the analysis of Frank Legge, Ph.D., the rate of descent of WTC 7 closely matches the rate of gravitational free fall: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf
Thanks, Peter. I reply below point by point.
Hi, I need your input at Talk:9/11#March 10 changes, at the bottom (03:29, 11 March 2008). Thx! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Peter Grey,
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) 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer ( talk) 21:54, 17 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)
I certainly won't. I'll thank you to do the same. -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Much as I support your reversions of Mr Strongbow, I was not aware that evoltion had been proved in 2005! What happened then? Paul B ( talk) 16:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
To show intellectual honesty, I recommend that some kind of Evolution disclaimer be inserted wherever Darwinistic-evolution theories are used to draw conclusions. People should be made aware when conclusions are based upon a science whose foundation is a list of assumptions. I suggest the use of the following disclaimer (or something that captures its essence):
-- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Origin of language. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle ( talk) 22:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain what you meant by your recent edit summary "only makes sense if the 'path of greatest resistance' is both damaged and undamaged"?
Could you explain why the first instance of dust on this page should not be wikified? After all the collapse produced large quantities of it.
Could you explain why the pancake theory should not be linked on this page? The term was used in the 9/11 Commission report and by many others to describe the cause of the collapse. I think its a bit odd that Wikipedia doesn't have a page for the pancake theory yet, considering that it's the "commonly accepted process" of WTC collapses. The use of the pancake theory should also have a citation from those that have used the term. Could you explain why you removed the fact template?
The buildings fell down onto themselves into what is described as their "footprint" as opposed to falling onto other buildings? Could you explain why you removed the term footprint?
A collapse direction through the path of greatest resistance is unexpected and unusual, considering that the building beneath was sound. The central support columns especially should of provided some resistance and the building above the impact points should have toppled sideways where there was no resistance. But that didn't happen and this is odd and not fully explained.
Another citation regarding the debris ejected ahead of the collapse is needed because demolition experts and have described them as squibs rather than ejected material. Could you explain why you also removed this citation needed template? - Shiftchange ( talk) 23:27, 7 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)
Peter, is there anything wrong with my two suggestions? They read fairly smoothly to me. Presumptive ( talk) 04:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Peter, I'm topic banned on the 9/11 pages so I can't participate directly in the discussion, but I thought I might be able to help clear up the distinction you are wondering about. The WTC structures failed locally but collapsed globally. There are therefore two things that engineers wanted to explain: (1) How did each collapse begin? And (2) why did it progress all the way to the ground? NIST focused on the first question, in part becauze Bazant had already answered the second question in the paper he made public a couple of days after the disaster. With the sentence you are discussing, however, the article says that NIST studied the second question "in detail". That is false; NIST did not study that question at all. The sentence Wayne is proposing (which Jehochman originally proposed at my suggestion) corrects this error, and has the added advantage of introducing the two sentences that follow. They are there to explain why NIST did not do what the article erroneously says it did do. Not incidentally, they are referenced to Bazant, not NIST. If the current version is to stand, it should minimally have a reference to the NIST report; but, as Wayne has shown, it will be difficult to find anything in that report to support the sentence in its present form. Best,-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 05:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Template:911tm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. - Noticed you in one of the template's previous afd's. Sloane ( talk) 16:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
No doubt that there is almost always room to AGF of others here...but not when their sole purpose in some areas is to undermine the encyclopedic and factual integrity of our articles. The 9/11 CTers have but one focus and that is to maximize CT and to get "equal time" in some twisted effort to to misuse the NPOV policy. I have been working on 9/11 related articles for a long time, so their tactics are nothing new...ensuring that all know exactly what their biases are is mandatory if we are ever going to achieve a fact based and accurately detailed presentation on these types of articles. There is little margin for error...if they openly state that they find reliable references, references deemed by a vast majority of the engineers and scientists to be reliable, to instead be bogus, "BS" or unreliable, then they have nothing to offer but edits that will be twisted to provide disinformation. They will play semantic games and repeatly ask others to prove a negative...it is, in many of the more ridiculous examples, nothing more than sheer trolling. I find myself faced with little room for such time consuming ridiculousness and do occasionally make comments such as the one about steel eating termites...what else can we do when faced with such...we can ignore it, we can scoff at them, but we can never acquiesce as doing so will only undermine the integrity of our articles and make it harder for us to obtain and/or maintain reliablility. When others openly state that they find reliable sources to be unreliable and provide zero proof to substantiate their claims, then the best thing to do is encourage them to focus on some other content...or if that fails, to get them topic or website banned. I highly respect your desire to maintain the best of standards, but without it being obvious what their intentions are, they won't ever stop trying to misuse this website as a soapbox for incorrect propaganda.-- MONGO 00:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
If I'm getting to be doing more harm than good let me know. Soxwon ( talk) 02:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't remove his talk page comments, please. Unless a comment is a personal attack or seriously disruptive, it should not be removed. Jehochman Talk 06:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought per WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH those should be spaced en dashes, not hyphens. No? — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 04:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Peter Grey! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 866 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{ unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 04:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The article Stéphanie_Blake has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Airplaneman
talk
22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Notify author/project: == Proposed deletion of Hamilton Screaming Eagles==
The article Hamilton Screaming Eagles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Paul McDonald (
talk)
21:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (
consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true
. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false
in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot ( talk) 18:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Seeing your edits there, it seems you might be interested in the biocentrism move proposal. 93.136.16.90 ( talk) 11:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
A case ( September 11 conspiracy theories) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (
talk)
19:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Peter Grey. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 03:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Peter Grey. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 04:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Peter Grey. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello Peter Grey! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Strikethrough indicates redirection.
A blogger has mentioned us and how we're ruining the 9/11 pages [1]. Here's where they mention you:
Here's a typical excerpt from the discussion on there:
QUESTION: "What do you think about this possible new title:
'9/11 skepticism and conspiracy theories'
It would mention both POV and leave the reader free to judge himself what in the article is a conspiracy theory and what is just sketpticism. What do you think?"--Pokipsy76 08:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
ANSWER: "Conspiracy theories and legitimate criticisms are two separate topics; combining them into a signle article which fails to distinguish between the two would represent a loss of information." Peter Grey 15:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC) -- DCAnderson 05:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Good call re the 911CT template. With hindsight it has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Fiddle Faddle 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As one who has been pretty active lately deeling with his edits, what is your feeling on starting a RfC on Lovelight ( talk · contribs)? I noticed this morning that he removed your message to him, and his response to four separate editors reverting his changes on September 11, 2001 attacks is rather revealing. I don't really expect an RfC to go anywhere production, but it is an early step in dispute resolution on the way to arbitration. Thanks. -- StuffOfInterest 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have replied to your question on the 9/11 Truth Movement discussion page and would like to hear your thoughts.
If my definitions are correct, then given your views on this page I would say you are a 'member' of the 9/11 truth movement but NOT the 9/11 Truth Movement. By 'member' I mean 'believer' as there is no 'membership' of the "tm". Corleonebrother 08:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:ArthurAnderson-radio.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Aurora-Browne-1.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 06:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Peter, your opinion on the current disagreement at the collaspe of the WTC article would be much appreciated. MONGO hasn't really made himself very clear.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 14:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Peter,
I expected my revision of the introduction to the 9/11 article to be reversed at some point.
What I'm curious to understand is why my revision of the introduction had to be reversed when what I contributed is more objective and closer to "truth" than what is currently in place, which is attempting to say with certainty and as fact that what happened was an attack by a specific group?
I was not looking to support or promote "conspiracy theories", nor should the revision be seen as an attempt to do so. I was merely trying to improve the article by avoiding its appearing to be merely a reflection of one view, regardless how official the government statements are.
What I find particularly interesting is not so much the truth of what happened, but the manner in which "history" is being negotiated and passed off as truth. What happened, in any circumstance, and how what happened is recorded is not transparent. Three different people at the scene of an accident will not all provide the same details of events. Why? That's just human nature. However, if "one story" is going to be adopted as the official story, who tends to be entrusted to establish that one story? Usually, it's a matter of might vs right. In other words, "to the victor go the spoils". Winners, or, those who are left standing to tell the story, usually get to tell their story to make themselves look like "the good guys" and the other side look like "the bad guys." And, if the might structure has the power to enforce its story, those who oppose it are labelled, ostracized, censured...
The very fact that there is hesitation, nay, fear, to allow an article to be written collaboratively that reflects doubt as to the official story is doubly ironic given the "freedom of speech" concept of American philosophy.
I frankly don't expect you to scratch your chin and say "hmmm, you got a point there, Duane. I'll put your revision back". I'm just writing to let you know that I saw the reversion coming, and am disappointed that people are so willing to accept the official story, regardless of its merit or lack thereof, simply because it is the official story. There are gaps and questions that increasing numbers of reasonable people are asking, and truth should not be afraid to deal with those questions. The American government has, historically, not infrequently found itself in this situation, and at some point people have to wonder why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgaubin ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Like too many other editors who have contributed to the current renaming debate at 9/11 conspiracy theories, you claimed that what "reliable sources" call something is a consideration in choosing names for articles, despite the fact that it had already been pointed out that this was not the case. Please do not misrepresent wikipedia policy and guidelines in this way because it causes a lot of confusion. ireneshusband (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Peter,
on Talk:9/11, you wrote:
If you want to help conclude this debate, then please quote from the guidelines where it says that we can overrule WP:NEUTRAL in cases where we (you) believe that the RS are right in their opinion, and quote where it says that balancing an article with facts from both sides is WP:SYNTHESIS? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
http://911research.com/wtc/analysis/wtc7/speed.html -- you can see that the facade of WTC 7 accelerated downward at very close to the rate of free fall. The difference to the rate of free fall is so small as to be virtually nonexistent. Also, according to the analysis of Frank Legge, Ph.D., the rate of descent of WTC 7 closely matches the rate of gravitational free fall: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf
Thanks, Peter. I reply below point by point.
Hi, I need your input at Talk:9/11#March 10 changes, at the bottom (03:29, 11 March 2008). Thx! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Peter Grey,
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) 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer ( talk) 21:54, 17 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)
I certainly won't. I'll thank you to do the same. -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Much as I support your reversions of Mr Strongbow, I was not aware that evoltion had been proved in 2005! What happened then? Paul B ( talk) 16:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
To show intellectual honesty, I recommend that some kind of Evolution disclaimer be inserted wherever Darwinistic-evolution theories are used to draw conclusions. People should be made aware when conclusions are based upon a science whose foundation is a list of assumptions. I suggest the use of the following disclaimer (or something that captures its essence):
-- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Origin of language. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle ( talk) 22:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain what you meant by your recent edit summary "only makes sense if the 'path of greatest resistance' is both damaged and undamaged"?
Could you explain why the first instance of dust on this page should not be wikified? After all the collapse produced large quantities of it.
Could you explain why the pancake theory should not be linked on this page? The term was used in the 9/11 Commission report and by many others to describe the cause of the collapse. I think its a bit odd that Wikipedia doesn't have a page for the pancake theory yet, considering that it's the "commonly accepted process" of WTC collapses. The use of the pancake theory should also have a citation from those that have used the term. Could you explain why you removed the fact template?
The buildings fell down onto themselves into what is described as their "footprint" as opposed to falling onto other buildings? Could you explain why you removed the term footprint?
A collapse direction through the path of greatest resistance is unexpected and unusual, considering that the building beneath was sound. The central support columns especially should of provided some resistance and the building above the impact points should have toppled sideways where there was no resistance. But that didn't happen and this is odd and not fully explained.
Another citation regarding the debris ejected ahead of the collapse is needed because demolition experts and have described them as squibs rather than ejected material. Could you explain why you also removed this citation needed template? - Shiftchange ( talk) 23:27, 7 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)
Peter, is there anything wrong with my two suggestions? They read fairly smoothly to me. Presumptive ( talk) 04:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Peter, I'm topic banned on the 9/11 pages so I can't participate directly in the discussion, but I thought I might be able to help clear up the distinction you are wondering about. The WTC structures failed locally but collapsed globally. There are therefore two things that engineers wanted to explain: (1) How did each collapse begin? And (2) why did it progress all the way to the ground? NIST focused on the first question, in part becauze Bazant had already answered the second question in the paper he made public a couple of days after the disaster. With the sentence you are discussing, however, the article says that NIST studied the second question "in detail". That is false; NIST did not study that question at all. The sentence Wayne is proposing (which Jehochman originally proposed at my suggestion) corrects this error, and has the added advantage of introducing the two sentences that follow. They are there to explain why NIST did not do what the article erroneously says it did do. Not incidentally, they are referenced to Bazant, not NIST. If the current version is to stand, it should minimally have a reference to the NIST report; but, as Wayne has shown, it will be difficult to find anything in that report to support the sentence in its present form. Best,-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 05:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Template:911tm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. - Noticed you in one of the template's previous afd's. Sloane ( talk) 16:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
No doubt that there is almost always room to AGF of others here...but not when their sole purpose in some areas is to undermine the encyclopedic and factual integrity of our articles. The 9/11 CTers have but one focus and that is to maximize CT and to get "equal time" in some twisted effort to to misuse the NPOV policy. I have been working on 9/11 related articles for a long time, so their tactics are nothing new...ensuring that all know exactly what their biases are is mandatory if we are ever going to achieve a fact based and accurately detailed presentation on these types of articles. There is little margin for error...if they openly state that they find reliable references, references deemed by a vast majority of the engineers and scientists to be reliable, to instead be bogus, "BS" or unreliable, then they have nothing to offer but edits that will be twisted to provide disinformation. They will play semantic games and repeatly ask others to prove a negative...it is, in many of the more ridiculous examples, nothing more than sheer trolling. I find myself faced with little room for such time consuming ridiculousness and do occasionally make comments such as the one about steel eating termites...what else can we do when faced with such...we can ignore it, we can scoff at them, but we can never acquiesce as doing so will only undermine the integrity of our articles and make it harder for us to obtain and/or maintain reliablility. When others openly state that they find reliable sources to be unreliable and provide zero proof to substantiate their claims, then the best thing to do is encourage them to focus on some other content...or if that fails, to get them topic or website banned. I highly respect your desire to maintain the best of standards, but without it being obvious what their intentions are, they won't ever stop trying to misuse this website as a soapbox for incorrect propaganda.-- MONGO 00:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
If I'm getting to be doing more harm than good let me know. Soxwon ( talk) 02:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't remove his talk page comments, please. Unless a comment is a personal attack or seriously disruptive, it should not be removed. Jehochman Talk 06:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought per WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH those should be spaced en dashes, not hyphens. No? — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 04:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Peter Grey! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 866 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{ unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 04:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The article Stéphanie_Blake has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Airplaneman
talk
22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Notify author/project: == Proposed deletion of Hamilton Screaming Eagles==
The article Hamilton Screaming Eagles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Paul McDonald (
talk)
21:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (
consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true
. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false
in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot ( talk) 18:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Seeing your edits there, it seems you might be interested in the biocentrism move proposal. 93.136.16.90 ( talk) 11:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
A case ( September 11 conspiracy theories) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (
talk)
19:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Peter Grey. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 03:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Peter Grey. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 04:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Peter Grey. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello Peter Grey! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)