Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are
not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting
our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See
here for more information. Thank you.--
John (
talk)
01:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
While I suspect you are yet another sock for one of the numerous banned editors, I'll assume good faith and leave you with some advice. If you wish to make any headway in your edits, do not call an article "treason against whole humanity". Regardless of how you feel, this is not the way to get your ideas across, and only increases the likelihood that you will be ignored, and even topic blocked.
Tread lightly, because you walk on ever crumbling ground. -- Tarage ( talk) 02:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you have anything to say on this vote?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth#Suggest_merging
Wowest ( talk) 02:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Notice: In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. |
-- Ice Cold Beer ( talk) 01:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
While some of your comments at AE911 show thoughtfulness, I believe almost all editors generally need to be reminded of the usefulness of a certain policy, namely WP:Words to Avoid (WP:avoid?). I think WP in its wisdom has recognized that word choices are inherently intertwined with fairness (npov), and this might be related to something insightful you are conveying. -- Ihaveabutt ( talk) 19:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Have you ever edited Wikipedia with any other accounts? Jehochman Talk 13:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are
not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting
our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See
here for more information. Thank you.--
John (
talk)
01:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
While I suspect you are yet another sock for one of the numerous banned editors, I'll assume good faith and leave you with some advice. If you wish to make any headway in your edits, do not call an article "treason against whole humanity". Regardless of how you feel, this is not the way to get your ideas across, and only increases the likelihood that you will be ignored, and even topic blocked.
Tread lightly, because you walk on ever crumbling ground. -- Tarage ( talk) 02:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you have anything to say on this vote?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth#Suggest_merging
Wowest ( talk) 02:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Notice: In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. |
-- Ice Cold Beer ( talk) 01:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
While some of your comments at AE911 show thoughtfulness, I believe almost all editors generally need to be reminded of the usefulness of a certain policy, namely WP:Words to Avoid (WP:avoid?). I think WP in its wisdom has recognized that word choices are inherently intertwined with fairness (npov), and this might be related to something insightful you are conveying. -- Ihaveabutt ( talk) 19:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Have you ever edited Wikipedia with any other accounts? Jehochman Talk 13:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)