User talk:SkeenaR

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Here's the standard welcoming template - it should help you get oriented - now that your'e officially a Wikipedian...

Welcome! Hello, SkeenaR, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

I look forward to working with you! Blackcats 02:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. This seems like a good project. And thanks for the advice.SkeenaR 06:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC) A /dispute page has been added.[reply]

Re: Alex Jones

Hey - Thanks for writing. To find out who did what edits, you can simply click on the history tab link and compare the different versions for the Alex Jones article it's here. Here is the edit where it was added. It was added by User:Algore2008, and [ these] are his contributions, which do not include the Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, where the pods stuff was added, so if the same guy added that then he did it under a different account or as an annon. He did start the James Crabtree article though - about some non-notable blogger from Austin Texas (where Alex Jonese lives too), so I think this user is either a friend of Mr. Crabtree or Crabtree himself. The user added a bunch of other crap to the Alex Jones article. I've put the Crabtree article up for deletion, and I would urge you to go vote for deletion there, but since you've just signed up here, it'd probably be best for you to wait at least a couple of weeks before you start partisipating in the votes. (If someone's just recently joined and/or only has a few edits to their name then people sometimes are hostile to them at the votes.) Anyhow thanks again for writing and feel free to contact me again if you have any questions.

Talk with you soon. -+-Blackcats 05:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: images

Regarding the images - the onest that are GDFL or gvt. public domain you can deffinately use on your page. A couple of the others are marked as copyright screenshots, which fair use only allows to be used in the context of critical commentary about the film or software or whatever. According to the strictest interpretation, you probably aren't allowed to have those on your user page unless you also critique them (ie add a caption which says "Brave Heart was a great movie!"). So I'd say you could go ahead and do that now if you want, or it wouldn't hurt to wait til someone complains... Blackcats 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link hijacking

See the section on the hijacking of one of your links in Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories Adam Adler 20:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky

Hi SkeenaR: thanks for the link on Chomsky: Noam Chomsky - Controlled Asset Of The New World Order. I'll read it through. In the Northern California 9-11 Truth Alliance we debated Chomsky about two years back. I don't remember what conclusions we came to. But I do recall that Peter Dale Scott seemed to believe in him, even though they had differing opinions on 9-11 (based on some of Scott's comments in one of the presentations we organized). And I can say that Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent was a seminal book for my understanding of how the pentagon and major corporations run media campaigns to manipulate public opinion. Kaimiddleton 06:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chomsky should be added on the 9/11 page, but some people really are aggresive against all things peaceful or open minded, so I ask you to please check in on this issue. Sincerely, GuamIsGood (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy theory" title neutrality proposal 2.0 voting has begun

See here and Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. zen master T 20:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

images

In the left column there's Special pages, under which is the gallery of new files. I think the current idea is to keep the images at the Wikimedia commons. There's a lot of stuff over there. I don't actually know how to do an image search on wikipedia. The commons are set up with categories. What might be easiest is to do a Google image search, choose 'advanced,' and restrict the search to wikipedia.org. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I know very little about image use on Wikipedia. These are the references: Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights, and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. It looks like one of the images uses an obsolete tag, so you might want to correct that. I didn't see anything on PrisonPlanet about use permissions. I wonder where he got the pictures. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User pages

Adam Adler is not a user page; That is a page in the article namespace, currently unused. If Adam Adler were a famous man, that's where his Wikipedia article would be. User:Adam Adler is the user page for that Wikipedia editor. It is empty until someone adds something to it. Is he having trouble with it? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I see a vertical line left of center; Is that the 'crimp?' Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could make that happen with well-placed charges, but it looks like about half the buckling failures I've seen. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen structures (not buildings) collapse inward without the use of explosives. We did it with models on a shaker table in school, to simulate the vibration from an earthquake. Things naturally fall straight down unless they are pushed laterally. In an earthquake there is usually some lateral motion, but even then a composite structure will often collapse in on itself. An explosion inside a structure is by its nature more likely to push things outward, unless things are carefully set up. A building collapsing under it's own weight because of column buckling may fall partially outward, or entirely inward, depending on how it's built and what structural members fail in what order. Here are a few links: This is a good intro; these are pictures in no particular order. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Building 7

Hi, I just wanted to make a comment about the wtc7 image we were discussing, the one here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WTC7.jpg. It has been posted onto the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page and the purpose is to try to refute the idea that WTC7 has no visual evidence of the supposed fires that the reports claim. But like I said, it seems like a strange photo, the way that the smoke stops abruptly along the side of the building, and because you can't see where it's coming from you can't really say what that smoke is from. That's why I don't think it should be posted by Building 7. Bov 20:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new additions to the page -- those are perfect. Bov

To clarify?

"Just to clarify, I have never once made an edit to the section on Isreal." I don't understand. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that would be my fancy administrator's rollback tool. It inserts those comments automatically. If a user vandalises and I hit 'rollback', it undoes all his work and restores the page to the last version someone other than the vandal worked on. In this case, I guess yours was the last good version prior to some vandalism of the section on Israel. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He did some good work;) Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page rank

Interesting question. I sometimes wonder if anyone but us is reading. The short answer is, I don't really know. There is Wikipedia:Most visited articles and User:Dcoetzee/List of Wikipedia articles with at least 1000 hits. Unfortunately, 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel, which redirects to 9/11 conspiracy theories, seems popular. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a user talk page

I'm not sure I understand. Do you want something to be deleted and not have it appear in the page history? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything odd in the page history. What is it that has been added? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see Blackcats added {{welcome}} when he welcomed you. I'm not sure of the terminology, but this is a 'live' template; Any changes anyone makes to the welcome template will be reflected everywhere it is used. If you look at Template:Welcome you can see the edit history of the template. Is the change you see on your page the result of a change made there? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're editing pretty well without bootcamp. I'm pretty sure 'live template' is not the correct term, even though that's what I called it. I only use templates for vandalism. I put {{subst:test1}} on the vandal's talk page, and he gets a mild warning. The actual template is {{test1}}. By prefixing it with 'subst', short for 'substitute', the template is "dead"; the template is turned into a fixed entry and doesn't change thereafter, even if someone edits Template:test1. The people who know say it's better to "subst" these commonly-used templates, to keep down the load on the servers. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work

Hi SkeenaR. Nice and clear improvement of the article :) --EyesAllMine 09:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... well, at least as long as it lasted :( --EyesAllMine 11:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful

Don't violate 3RR on Collapse of the World Trade Center. MONGO will report you and you'll just get blocked. Your claiming his edits are vandalism won't be accepted as an excuse. This is clearly a disagreement about content, and should be worked out on the talk page. If you're blocked it will be that much harder to make your case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already done...[10]...please read the three revert rule carefully for future situations.--MONGO 21:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you are not blocked. You might leave a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR saying you won't revert the page anymore. If blocked, you can edit your user page. I don't know about article talk pages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts on my part and in that article will continue to be perfectly legimate and not violate clauses or regulations. SkeenaR 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct any further materiel for dispute on this matter to one of the following pages. Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center or /dispute. Previous comments have been redirected to /dispute. SkeenaR 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fished In

He he. Man! Hooked ya! But good! Thanks for making my day buddy. Morton devonshire 07:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That just ain't right! SkeenaR 07:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's better! User_talk:198.207.168.65 SkeenaR 03:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I was just about creating that S9/11T article, but you did it, and it is very well written :) --EyesAllMine 08:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on the article. Nice work! Kaimiddleton 01:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Thank you very much for your vote and comment. You would make me very happy if you could take a look at this AFD as well:

Thank you again. peace. --Striver 23:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another AFD

I think that this may interest you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatekeeper (politics). Thanks, HK 06:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfc

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil --Striver 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:050905roberts1.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:050905roberts1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

-SCEhard T 00:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:121105jones.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:121105jones.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 14:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image Problems

Hi SkeenaR,
Sorry but my image expertise is limited to the stuf pre-uploading. I don't really know that much about licensing. I'd suggest contacting Solipsist who's always solved all of my problems ;-). Thanks for your message --Fir0002 www 05:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wouldn't say I'm an expert, but I have looked into a number of copyright issues, mostly in relation to photographers rights and art works. Sorry to say that most of the images that you pointed to on Images for Deletion, look like straight forward copyright violations to me. Some of the headshots might be fairuse under {{Promophoto}} (see Wikipedia:Publicity photos), but it would be better to source equivalent images from the individuals own web sites. Even then they would only be fair use on a page about that person.

You should also note that FairUse images and screenshots can only be FairUse on the the pages the discuss the programs. In other words they shouldn't be used on user pages. -- Solipsist 06:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DUB

I like it, and will leave it up. Thanks for being a cheerful Wikipedian. Your bro Morton devonshire 02:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Why are you vandalizing it? I Lov E Plankton 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't vandalism. See your talk. SkeenaR 00:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was funny but it should still be removed. I Lov E Plankton 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looked like vandalism to me, too - I was about to give you a warning for that. Please take the time to think about whether or not something's appropriate for an article talk page before putting it there. CLW 00:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought his addition wasn't that bad for a talk page. SkeenaR 00:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images on user pages

I asked you politely well over a month ago to remove the fair use images from your user page. However, you have refused to do so and have blanked my original messages relating to this request. Would you please now remove these images? If you refuse to remove these images, you may be blocked from editing. Thanks, CLW 11:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove them initially, but changed my mind at some point. I will remove them again in a couple of days when I have found some new content. SkeenaR 00:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, dealing with copyright violations isn't a case of doing it when you can be bothered or when you get round to it. I'm therefore removing the bottom section of your user page. Please feel free to reinsert anything that doesn't violate copyright, but reinserting any free use images is likely to result in a block. Regards, CLW 10:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheney?

Nah; A robot would be a better shot. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Could i ask you to change your vote to "keep or merge" here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People questioning the official American 9/11 account? Thanks. --Striver 10:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

afd

Did you see what happened to the Jones-Sheen interview?! --Striver 22:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theories vs Controversy

Hello! As a wikipedia newby, I'm asking you how should i proceed regarding this dispute. I already asked for informal moderation, but i wasn't answered and don't think it will solve anything.Normal nick 23:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for your answer!

You said: "Hello Normal. (...) The thing is, you can only do so much when faced with strong opposition, especially when administrators are involved. SkeenaR 23:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)"

Isn't this opposition "strong"?! I never imagined WP to be such a chaos while reading it...
What can I legitematly do to get admins involved?
My argumentation barely proves that NPOV principles are beeing violated, despiste the subjectivity to them inhenrent. Doesn't this has any value?
In my actions, What shouldn't I have done from a "veteran" point of view?

I think you need to keep your cool most of all. On other pages, e.g. Timeline of evolution, the discussions are much more polite (even though you can imagine that topic has potential for controversy). Obviously people have strong opinions on this topic. One person who is instructive to look at is User:Tom harrison. I don't always agree with him, but I think he does his due diligence when it comes to researching the issues that folks around here bring up; and furthermore, I think he takes a respectful tone. Kaimiddleton 05:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motorized?

Do you mean where people can or can't use motorized transport in parks? In U.S. Forests, forest access roads it is allowed, any paved road in NPS sites allowed. In Bureau of Land Management areas, there are the fewest restrictions. Wilderness areas allow no motorized uses, including mountain bikes. Check with the local area you venture into for clarification...I assume this answered your question.--MONGO 03:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations

If you ate accusing me of being a paid webspammer, you better prepare your defense or provide an immediate apology.--MONGO 03:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made no legal threat. I meant arbitration. Accusing someone of being a paid webspanner or censor is a pretty serious matter.--MONGO 03:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not cover up anything. I said that 50kb of new additions had occured since that wrongful innuendo. I created the last two or three archives and at no time have a I covered up anything. If I was going to cover it up...as an admin, I could have just deleted it. I will once again ask for an apology.--MONGO 03:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try and set me up, Mongo. I hope that's not what you are doing. SkeenaR 04:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

page hits

Basically the answer is 'no'; We used to try to keep track, but the burden on the servers was too great. There is some historical data. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not what you asked about, but you might find these wikistats interesting. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fun n Games

Yo momma! Man-o-man what a bunch of whiners those Bush-haters are. Pretty much a humorless crowd. Makes the conspiracy crowd seem tame by comparison. I would have alerted you earlier, just so you could enjoy seeing me pilloried and castigated, but I didn't want to draw you into the fray so that they would paint a target on your head as well. Hope you are enjoying yourself over in the Bat Cave while I'm occupied over here in No Humor Land. Nice to hear from you friend. Cheers. Morton devonshire 12:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checked mail -- didn't see anything. BTW, I would stay away from the Daniel Brandt pages, as those people really take disagreement personally over there. I've watched both those pages and Brandt's website, where there's also a discussion board. Pretty intense stuff. The Wikipedians who discuss Brandt really have a huge axe to grind with him, and get more strident (and aggressive) each day. My advice is stay away, unless you have a Wiki-death-wish. I'm hoping that page will eventually burn itself out, or that the people just tire of the subject and leave the bloke alone. Yeah, I believe the Information War is real, but of course I see the culprits as mainly Lefties, and you see it as Rightists. That's what makes the world go round. Cheers. Morton devonshire 07:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tough crowd those Bush-haters are -- I even got blocked for 24 hours for violating a rule that doesn't exist. The Admin who did it got blasted pretty serious. The article in question got re-re-re-nominated for Afd, and is now going down to defeat fast. I won't point to it, because I will get accused of stacking, or some other nonsense like that. BTW, I never did get an e-mail from you, but I did send one your way. Morton devonshire 17:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Doorap.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Doorap.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Nivus^(talk) 10:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it for you. Morton devonshire 20:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Expert Investigators

Not trying to be divisive there, just trying to find a descriptor that satisfies both sides. My point is that there are many people who write about the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but as far as I can tell, none of them are actually qualified to render an expert opinion about any of the issues they write about. They are more akin to investigative journalists, which is fine, but not really "researchers" or "experts" either. Have you thought about the issue? Morton devonshire 23:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right up your alley

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 Morton devonshire 18:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About "9/11 conspiracy theories"

Why that page is frequented by so many defenders of the official POV and so few defender of the skeptic POV? Today I was trying to make an almost innocuous edit in the intro and 3 people have repetedly neutralized my attempts in all the ways.--Pokipsy76 22:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Pokipsy a vandal?

"I'm also going to point out that calling such minor edits as that vandalism is really really stretching it. Putting that warning sign up on this page is way overkill. I'm just going to suggest getting a little more practice at this before acting like a big tough administrator and doing a wholesale POV article rewrite of a controversial subject. SkeenaR 00:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)"

This was the change Pokipsy made in response to Tom's edit [11] with the edit summary of "even more specific" It can very easily be viewed as retalitory vandalism after the heated debate we had all been engaged in. I used the template that Wikipedia provided as per their policies on WP:Vandalism. I wasn't trying to "scare him" by pretending to be an administrator, I was following the procedures layed out by Wikipedia. And he really was going too far.--DCAnderson 00:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill's edit *was* vandalism (at least in the same way of mine) and you defended it, so you are not in the position to accuse anybody of vandalism. I was going just as far as Bill. Did you follow the "procedures" with Bill? :)--Pokipsy76 08:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's not a vandal. Yes, if he persists in personnal attacks, incivility, and edit-warring someone will post to his page soon, telling him he's been blocked for one or all of those. You know very well that it won't be me blocking him, but an uninvolved admin. Is he a well-meaning guy who just wants to help write an encyclopedia? Maybe. I suppose User:Zen-master meant well. Certainly he was sincere. Maybe I'm wrong to see any other parallels between his and Pokipsy's behavior. I guess time will tell. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't yours a personal attack? Aren't your defense of vandals, unmotivated cuts to the article and your total unability do make a democratic discussion (I can't find one in the talk page) a form of incivilty and edit warring?--Pokipsy76 08:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokipsy's edit was not vandalism, in my opinion. I know that users aren't allowed to remove warning templates from their talk pages, but I think in this case it would be justified. Maybe an admin is allowed to do it.--Bill 14:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the edit was not intended as vandalism at all and that the warning template should be removed. SkeenaR 20:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Article

Yah, attempts at manipulating the press are nothing new. We call it "spin." The press in America have been a little too willing to blindly swallow what the Administration has said. Things have changed though, and come on these guys couldn't even hide the missing WMDs or their involvment in the Valerie Plame affair. Do you really think they could have hid a 9/11 cover-up?

I think Stephen Colbert summed up the relaitionship between the Bush Administration and the press quite well during his routine at the White House Press Corp banquet (which was ironically performed only ten feet away from the president, you should read it, its hilarious!)[12]:

As excited as I am to be here with the president, I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of Fox News. Fox News gives you both sides of every story: the president's side, and the vice president's side. But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they're super-depressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished. Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew. But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!--DCAnderson 02:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ON VIDEO

Colbert with Bush [13] Colbert with Kristol [14]

SkeenaR 02:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, I believe they should be presented, but they shouldn't be allowed to run rampant over serious debate. If every "blog topic of the week" Conspiracy Theory has to be given equal weight, the Signal to Noise ratio of these articles is going to get out of hand real fast. There is a reason Wikipedia has those clauses about "Undue Weight" and "Giving 'equal validity'" in their WP:NPOV policy.--DCAnderson 02:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might enjoy this, given the recent policing of the pages we work on. Also featured in a Village Voice article. Bov 18:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Conspiracy theories

The editor in question is quite persistent, and it's only been a couple of days. Is there any particular issue in leaving it longer? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on the page. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was the same guy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your NOTES to PureLogic

Thanks SkeenaR, for the link to the WTC collapse. Yes, I have been getting a distinct sense of how the rules are applied and by whom. It is quite a phenomenon, and if not explainable through a coordinated purposeful intent, it could boil down to the immense change in outlook that would be required by looking squarely at things. Starting down that track is not acceptable to a good many people, because it would mean change. PS, I believe we live in the same country.--PureLogic 01:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, SkeenaR. Yesterday I could edit the Collapse of the WTC on the article page, but not on the discussion page, as there was no edit button. I couldn't believe it and tried several times with the same result. However, tonight it has changed and I can edit both pages! Tonight, Weds., on OMNI TV THE STANDARD, at 9 pm Pacific time, Barry Zwicker was interviewed for over ten minutes across Canada on his new book about what really happened. Oh, what relief! Thanks for your tips, much appreciated, and very useful. I am in the capital city of your province and also spend time on the Gulf Islands.--PureLogic 05:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome for anything that might have helped. Personally I'm not sure what really happened, but I think this stuff needs to be presented or nothing will ever be resolved. SkeenaR 19:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection

I've passed it on to Curps (talk · contribs), who protected it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Wallace Zwicker

Hi Skeena. You were right...the arguing is nonproductive. So I created Barrie Wallace Zwicker after watching his 74 minute video, "The Great Conspriracy" (2005). The link to the video is on his page, and if you get a chance you might watch his interview for his upcoming book on Saturday night, May 20th at 9 pm, or tape it...on OMNI TV "The Standard". The program airs nationwiden and I just happened to see its first airing on Weds...perhaps you did, too!--PureLogic 21:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Later today. I received your note about there already being a Barrie Zwicker page, which surprised me, because when I searched for it, prior to writing my own article, it did not appear. How did you find it? It takes a couple of hours to write an article and it really seems unfair that a contributor can be so misled as to waste time like this. Re merging the two articles, would that create a rationale for releasing it from limbo-land, where there is no consensus about restoring it, and may never be, by the look of it? Thanks for your help.--PureLogic 05:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday: I see the postings are date-stamped 7-8 hours later than my time zone. That means Britain or Europe. Interesting. I want to thank you for your further editing information and I will merge as you suggest. A reminder; Zwicker is scheduled for 9 pm tonight on OMNI. It's about 15 minutes long.--PureLogic 23:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waking up?

Was wondering when you would notice. : ) Morton devonshire 19:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're famous. See [15] Morton devonshire 06:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Truth Movement Page up for Deletion

They are claiming it is not a "movement". Just to let you know.

hi

Take a look here. Peace. --Striver 15:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, i hope you are informed about this as well. --Striver 17:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tactics

Hi Skeena

I have been slowly dipping into wikicontent creation/editing and today have finally got around to starting to tackle one of the contentious articles, or the talk section at least. It was Conspiracy Theory. We are clearly worked up about the same things.

Basically I have been impressed with the way you have tried to engage in dialogue over contentious issues. It is definitely not you who is the "broken record".

That said, there are obviously times when you make tactical errors, as many of the above comments have already pointed out. Needless to say, I have made a good few myself in my time. What I would therefore like to ask you is that, if you see that I have made such a tactical error on a talk page or whatever, you let me know about it. Perhaps on my talk page. I would greatly value your advice.

One thing that has become clear to me already is that some of the problems that I have thought of as bias on the part of wikipedia admins are actually problems lying outside wikipedia. For instance, in general, it is not unreasonable for an encyclopedia to put an emphasis on the scholarly consensus. Otherwise every article on extinct species of aardvark would have to waste space on creationism. There is a problem when scholarly consensus is swayed by fear rather than reason, in other words, by politics. To put it another way, wikipedia is constitutionally incapable of admitting that the emperor has no clothes. I don't personally see a way that this can be changed easily that will leave wikipedia as a functionally useful encyclopedia. What we need to do instead is to find what thoughtful and well-argued dissenting scholarship there is and bring it to light.

One thing I have noticed is that the the conformism article is marked as needing a tidy-up. I think that if this can be done, and if scholarly sources can be found to back up the (screamingly obvious) fact that conformism (i.e. fear of ridicule and other forms of punishment )is the main reason that "conspiracy theories" don't gain traction, it will be possible to get the Conspiracy Theory article a lot more balanced than it is at the moment. Corey Robin's excellent book Fear: The History of a Political Idea is certainly on the right territory, and I highly recommend it, but it is not enough. Any attempt to tie Robin's argument directly to non-belief in conspiracies would probably be rightly regarded as "original research". I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this (or anyone else's for that matter).

One obvious answer would be for me to find a way to do that original research myself in a way that stands up to academic scrutiny, so that others will be able to cite it in secondary sources, such as wikipedia. Not an easy proposition by any means, but I am looking into it.

Ireneshusband 04:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[16] SkeenaR 00:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Thanks for your message.

Take a look at Orientalism (book), and then take a look at Orientalism. Edward Said's critique is clearly and fully acknowledged in the second paragraph. You cannot read the rest of the article without knowing that there is a huge question mark over the whole academic discipline of Orientalism. In fact it would be impossible for any editor to get away with an article about Orientalism without fully acknowledging the force of Said's critique. It would certainly be hard to read Orientalism without wanting to take a look at Orientalism (book).

If there were one book that painstakingly drew together all the various strands of thinking around "conspiracy theory" and then used them to blow the very concept of a "conspiracy theory" itself out of the water, then a single, well-placed paragraph in Conspiracy theory would be enough for any reasonable person to work out what was what, no matter how many acres of space were subsequently devoted to pretending that that book didn't actually exist at all. I'm thinking aloud here. I don't know of any such book, but I wonder if there might not exist other materials that would carry some of the same kind of authority.

On a completely separate note, if you ever get time to read the book Orientalism you will have absolutely no trouble understanding how easily people in the Christian/post-Christian world could be led to believe that their world is now in a fight to the death with a bunch of hysterically suicidal brown people (with long noses probably). -- Ireneshusband 08:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the amazon reviews for Creature from Jekyll Island was the following: "This book, while slightly marred by the occasional conspiracy theory, is a great account of one of the most important real life conspiracies of our time." Newspeak has really got us tied up in knots, hasn't it? As you rightly suggest, "conspiracy theory" itself is the lever because once the notion of "conspiracy theory" is dead and buried a whole lot more thought becomes possible than is possible now. I'll try to get around to reading the book in the near future.

And Carroll Quigley. Sounds like the old story of the narcissism of the elites. They become so puffed up that they become unable to distinguish between the welfare of society as a whole and the size of their own private stash of wealth and fame. At least that phenomenon (elite narcissism) is acknowledged in the academic corpus. IMO conformism is the great evil of the ordinary people and narcissism is that of the elites.

I did a google on "conformism conspiracy-theory" and came up with very little useful. And one of the few useful bits was something I myself had posted somewhere. It's really surprising how few people seem to make such an obvious connection. Clearly some work to be done here. -- Ireneshusband 22:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey! I was completely unaware of the existence of google scholar until that link you posted. Something I need to know about, definitely. Thanks! Ireneshusband 03:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Take a look at this and [17], thanks.--Striver --Striver 10:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

For things like Template talk:Cite book, Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations is useful. There's Wikipedia:Footnotes for information about the <ref></ref> tags. I was thinking about doing some of this on 9/11 Truth Movement. It takes a but more work up front, but it makes the page easier to maintain. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to Harvard citations? Yes, on balance. But there's something to be said for each, and I'm open to discussion. I do think it's better if it can be all one or the other, within an article. By the way, I heard something about not putting citations in the lead section. Have you seen anything about that? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proof

Do you have proof that I am paid to edit articles related to 9/11? I'll be waiting for your proof.--MONGO 18:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't got no proof of nothing. SkeenaR 18:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I have blocked you for 48 hours for defamation of character, bordering on personal attacks. The things you post are akin to slander, and will never be tolerated on wikipedia.--MONGO 18:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I protest. I never said anything you never said yourself. I never accused you of anything and said on the talk page that you can speak for yourself. SkeenaR 18:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spend the weekend thinking about how you can improve articles by using reliable sources, and not by trying to defame others good intentions.--MONGO 18:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that lots only to have you revert me. This is not a legitimate block.. SkeenaR 18:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review WP:NPA.--MONGO 18:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You review it and maybe you will get a clue. I think you are vindictive and petty. You might as well stay out of my page. SkeenaR 18:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you prepared to offer an apology for attacking me in such a manner?--MONGO 19:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SkeebaR, you tried to use innuendo to make a personnal attack without taking responsibility for it. You directly impugned his character and motivations. You can't just throw something like that out there and then deny responsibility for having brought it up. If you are going to put his personnal information out there, and present it with the implication that you did, blocking you is the only option. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't even going to answer, but no, I will not apologize because I didn't even make any attack. I made a point of trying to make it clear that I wasn't attacking you when I was referring to the disinfo campaigns and such. I said that it wasn't right of me to speak for you and that you can speak for yourself. I even tried to be sensitive about it when I was giving CB Brooklyn the info and the articles, but even that isn't enough for you. And I never gave any information that Mongo didn't give himself. You simply don't want the subject mentioned even when it's pertinent to the conversation, or it's starting to look now like especially when it's pertinent to the conversation. This block is totally illegitimate and I know that is the case. Mongo can call me a loonie, say that people should put in padded cells, straight jackets, that they are like viruses, like fungus,(and he's proud of it[18]) then I get blocked for the conversation at Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center? This must be my figurative padded cell. Innuendo? Big deal. This is all BS is what this is. Thanks for blocking me Mongo, you are giving everyone another great demonstration. I will take responsibility for having brought it up. What do you think Tom? What do you think is right? If anybody should be apologizing it should be Mongo. SkeenaR 20:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think my action punitive, but it isn't. Your mischaracterizations of my motivations are a. personal attacks, and b. have nothing to do with trying to make the article better. That is a discussion page about the article, not about me or my motivations. A quick glance of where my main motivations are can be found on my userpage, in which I list almost 200 articles I have started, 4 of which I also started or was a major contributor that became featured...none of these articles, aside from a few I recently wrote detailing some of the buildings that were going to be built at the WTC site, have anything to do with the events of 9/11. I am not a single purpose editor...hardly. I stated that I work(ed) for USDHS was so maybe a few folks might say, gee...he was there...maybe he has something to add that will enhance the article. But no, the conspiracy theorists, with no small thanks to your misrepresentations and innuendo, want to believe the opposite.--MONGO 20:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you Mongo. If that's your story, stick to it. SkeenaR 20:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to use Mongo's personnal information to undermine his editing, and advance the position you support. You insinuated that he was some kind of government propaganda agent, trying to cover up the "real story." I think the block is appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This all started when you said that only a month ago, you would have been skeptical of a misinformation campaign. There was no better way to elaborate on the things that would make people suspicious and point out CB Brooklyns understandable misconception that Mongo was a "sheeple". Anybody can go read the conversation and make up their own minds. If you think the block is appropriate, that's your perogative. Thanks. SkeenaR 20:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree to remove the mischaracterizations and to not misrepresent me again, then I'll lift your block.--MONGO 20:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a mischaracterization. Go ahead and lift the block if you want, but I'm not apologizing for something I didn't do. Do you have any proof? SkeenaR 20:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, re-read what you wrote and the links to sources that you linked stating the feds were going to editing. None of that has anything to do with article enhancement. I am about to go out the door, so make up your mind.--MONGO 21:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read what I wrote here in this discussion. I didn't mischaracterize you and I have stated how, why etc. I'll remove the two external links. SkeenaR 21:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really open to compromising...I am going to remove that entire section...if you disagree with this, then the block will stand. Furthermore, mischaracterizations and innuendo that continue to undermine my good faith edits by you must be agreed to now to cease on your part.--MONGO 21:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tick tock..I'll check back in 8 hours or so. Go ride your motorcycle or do some martial arts or something.--MONGO 21:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a friend, take my advice, and apologize, and move on. Pride is a worthless thing.

Morton Devonshire^Yo

Now what's with CB Brooklyn's block?

It says that I used his IP. That just isn't possible. I used computers at two different locations today, one time I had forgotten to sign in. I have no idea who CB Brooklyn is, I've never met him, I'm not him. Somebody is making a big mistake, Mongo I assume, since he's the blocking admin. Somebody better fix that. CB Brooklyn is an innocent bystander being hit by Mongos stray bullets. SkeenaR 22:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't understand. What is going on here? Why does my username show up in CB's source code? SkeenaR 22:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I converted the source to an html document and it doesn't look like anything special except for that my name is on it and it wants to run ActiveX. I really would like to know what is going on here. Does anyone know if this has any meaning? Should I go find a new hat? SkeenaR 22:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked him for 24 hours, after I blocked you. I have no idea what you are talking about.--MONGO 06:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused when I got this message while attempting to view CB Brookyln's userpage:

(Earlier it stated Mongo as the blocker with a slightly different reason)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by CBDunkerson. The reason given is this:

Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "SkeenaR". The reason given for SkeenaR's block is: "Implying that someone might be being paid to edit Wikipedia to insert biased/false info IS a personal attack even though

You may contact CBDunkerson or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.

Note that you may not use the "e-mail this user" feature unless you have a valid e-mail address registered in your user preferences.

Your IP address is ***.**.**.***. Please include this address in any queries you make.

I guess it's just because I'm blocked and CB hasn't edited in is mainpage. CB's mainpage is still blank, so the wikisoftware sees it as an edit attempt I'm guessing. SkeenaR 10:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC involving your case

User:CBDunkerson filed this RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO. --Pokipsy76 16:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother

IS here after all...[19] SkeenaR 23:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I understood you to be commenting on the social psychology of wikis, which is something I've thought about myself from time to time. Good news: scientists have finally constructed an artificial intelligence. Bad news: it's an obnoxious jerk. Some links: MeatballWiki; m:Wikipedia sociology; m:Wikimania 2006 Call for Participation; WikiSym 2006.

I've also thought about the online gaming in those massive multi-player worlds, with their own economies. I've never done any of that myself, unless Wikipedia counts. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silencio?

Hi Skeena :) Where are your comments to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MONGO ? EyesAllMine 19:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard from you in a while. Thanks for the reminder. SkeenaR 00:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog

Hah, the blog line was a joke. Haven't updated it in weeks. --Mmx1 06:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you were making a joke. Where is it though? I'd be interested. Military, 9/11 etc. SkeenaR 06:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, mostly personal. And hence, not something I'd post on wiki. Nothing personal, but there are some wierdos out there. And I'm (shockingly) not talking about any conspiracy theorists. Check out the history of USAA and it's talk page sometime. Some nut pushing a personal vendetta against the company. Got quickly permabanned when he started posting pictures of the CEO's wife and kids, along with some...interesting...comments. Taught me a lesson about shielding my personal info from wiki. --Mmx1 06:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check out the article to see what you are talking about. I know what you mean, and I don't blame you. SkeenaR 06:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives 6 and earlier contain most of the early material. A lot of the more offensive later stuff got deleted by admins, although the warning at the top of Talk:USAA/Archive09 makes it pretty clear what was going on. --Mmx1 06:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of crap is unfortunate to say the least. I would support anyone in combating this type of thing. SkeenaR 06:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory introduction

SkeenaR, sorry I haven't replied earlier. I think the first para of Conspiracy theory is now at a standard worthy of a great encyclopedia. Well done indeed!

I will take a closer look at some of the subsequent sections when I get time. The difference in quality is now clear to see IMO.

btw I'm glad somebody got rid of that Information Awareness Office logo. It was very distracting. It played to the idea that "conspiracy theories" are purely the province of kooks obsessed with mystical symbols. Ireneshusband 00:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

To Morton Devonshire and SkeenaR; Why do we now have two pages, Researchers questioning the mainstream media account of 9/11 and Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11? Both are locked for now. No blame, we will get it sorted out. I'm just asking. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be okay now. I have temporarily locked page moves just in case, and we can discuss a page move tomorrow, maybe at WP:RM. Thanks for your quick and candid reply, Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Bro, the Problem-reaction-solution article is facing some critisism. I could use some help with editing the article, take a look at the changes and the talk page. Thanks. --Striver 00:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping with the article, i really appreciate it. --Striver 08:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just created an article, Dean Gotcher, and since i can predict the future, i would like you to take a look on the obligatory afd that is on its way... --Striver 00:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that... However, how about helping me here? --Striver 16:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SkeenaR, for my information, may i ask what the reason is that you were not intrested in the above mentioned project? thanks. --Striver 10:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't sure what to do about that one. See Strivers talkpage. SkeenaR 09:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Im not sure if you follow prisonplanet, but look at this one: [20] Cool :) --Striver 10:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Still a lot of work to do. Nice to be appreciated.--Thomas Basboll 14:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Right

Have you seen this yet[21]? Classic. Morton devonshire 20:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vids

Great, food for my Hard Drive, thank you :D --Striver 07:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones Template

Take a look at the template now, and let me know what you think. I'm trying to be fun, not insulting. Does it work? Morton devonshire 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love it.[22] Please post more pictures like that. SkeenaR 05:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation Terrorist

Apparently, the Swedish Leftists think I am some kind of "Disinformation Terrorist". See [23]. Surprisingly, I am the chief "Disinformation and Discredit Agent" on Wikipedia. Kind of makes me feel warm all over. Morton devonshire 22:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO

http://www.wordspy.com/words/mongo.asp - loads of laugh, honestly... lots of cool hits for mongo, I had no idea how notorious that name can be… Lovelight

I removed your comment along with the advert on the 9/11 talk page. There was nothing wrong with your comment, of course, but it didn't seem to make much sense by itself. I'll restore it though if you prefer. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's good now, but thanks for letting me know. SkeenaR 03:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD alert: Don Paul

SkeenaR, it looks like a concerted effort is being made to erase yet another article relating to the 9/11 debacle. Please have a look. Ombudsman 03:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh

Where ya been Bro? Did you switch usernames again? Morton devonshire 21:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I never have. Way way too busy for this stuff. Ill come back in for some fun sometime in the future, but not now. I actually haven't seen this talk page for a couple of weeks. Nice to hear from you. SkeenaR 04:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "9/11 conspiracy theories"

I have just suggested renaming 9/11 conspiracy theories to "9/11 (alternative theories)", but a lot of people don't seem to like it. Just letting you know in case you want to put your oar in. Ireneshusband 08:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Duh."

Most statements or questions referred to as "conspiracy theories" are actually either hypotheses, neither detailed enough or elaborate enough to be considered theories, or simply speculative statements. Wowest (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of David Schippers

The article David Schippers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

As non-notable and overly promotional.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 06:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]