The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Dicdef, if not nonsense. Delete. DMG413 17:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep per above, just to make the point that wikipedia isn't about respecting little secret societies.
JoshuaZ 07:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Delete per Mark's clarification.
JoshuaZ 16:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
Note that 208.233.32.44 has now repeatedly tried to remove/modify votes. I just restored them again. JoshuaZ 19:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I do apologize for the confusion...I was under the impression that your comments could be removed after the problem was fixed. I will keep that from happening, again. I am a new user.
However, for this record, also note that JoshuaZ and mark have made repeated attempts to discredit this article, though have actually contributed nothing to the article as of the time of this comment. I strongly believe there is personal bias involved in these two users' activity on this article.
I believe dministrative mediation is very necessary at this point. 208.233.32.44 20:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply
As for the rest of the problems, I'm really not sure which aspect of the article bucketsofg are refering to. Can you elaborate on a specific part of the article?
wikinfo.org
, where the rules seem to be slightly less stringent. —
mark
✎ 16:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replyI will most definately continue researching this group at home, regardless of whether the article is deleted, however I will continue to find citable sources in the article.
I understand your point about original research. Perhaps I should go to the newspapers anonymously with what I have (much more than the article), and let them take it from there.
http://www.freedomdomain.com/email_1.html
Lou "Bob" Dobbs, III 19:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Dicdef, if not nonsense. Delete. DMG413 17:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep per above, just to make the point that wikipedia isn't about respecting little secret societies.
JoshuaZ 07:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Delete per Mark's clarification.
JoshuaZ 16:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
Note that 208.233.32.44 has now repeatedly tried to remove/modify votes. I just restored them again. JoshuaZ 19:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I do apologize for the confusion...I was under the impression that your comments could be removed after the problem was fixed. I will keep that from happening, again. I am a new user.
However, for this record, also note that JoshuaZ and mark have made repeated attempts to discredit this article, though have actually contributed nothing to the article as of the time of this comment. I strongly believe there is personal bias involved in these two users' activity on this article.
I believe dministrative mediation is very necessary at this point. 208.233.32.44 20:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply
As for the rest of the problems, I'm really not sure which aspect of the article bucketsofg are refering to. Can you elaborate on a specific part of the article?
wikinfo.org
, where the rules seem to be slightly less stringent. —
mark
✎ 16:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replyI will most definately continue researching this group at home, regardless of whether the article is deleted, however I will continue to find citable sources in the article.
I understand your point about original research. Perhaps I should go to the newspapers anonymously with what I have (much more than the article), and let them take it from there.
http://www.freedomdomain.com/email_1.html
Lou "Bob" Dobbs, III 19:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply