User talk:Peter Grey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Peter's rough notes

[edit] My list of articles related to the Monarchy in Canada

Strikethrough indicates redirection.

I was wondering what you think of the Salpointe Catholic High School article, since I see you on the history page. I am an alumni and am looking to clean the page up. Any suggestions? 70.171.199.133 07:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

[edit] Monarchist League of Canada and Monarchy in Canada

Please review Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Monarchist League of Canada and Monarchy in Canada and if you agree to Mediation, sign in there. Thank you. User:Ed Poor, Mediation Committee Chairman pro tem. July 4, 2005 19:08 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Commonwealth realm

Id like you and User:Jtdrl to serve as acting editors on the article, while its protected --and likewise suggest restructuring or organization for related UK Commonwealth issues. The idea is that Gbambino and Andy wont be able to directly edit the article, but must make specific suggestions on the talk. -SV|t 05:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gapping

You're right about gapping. I did it once, back when I had a 1972 Cutlass Supreme. It's pretty much gone away, since electronic ignition replaced sparkplugs. It has nothing to do with robotic rabbit (or "rabit") parts. Fan1967 16:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of meta:Rodovid.org

Hi there, I find your user page using Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Translators. I am working on the project proposal meta:Rodovid.org and want to have it translated into as many languages as posible. If you could help with translation, add your name to meta:Rodovid.org/translation and please, go ahead, translate the page. I would greatly appreciate your help.--Bjwebb (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Blake

As you have recently contributed to the article on Stephanie Blake, I wanted to inform you that this article has been tagged for speedy deletion. This has been done because the article seems to be a biographical account of a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why the topic is notable. If you can indicate why Stephanie Blake is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on the article's talk page. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert the topic's notability, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Before you choose to contest the article's deletion, however, please read over our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, and you might also want to read our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regarding Template talk:Cannon class destroyer escort

Hi, I noticed that you reordered the Template:Cannon class destroyer escort alphabetically. Personally I prefer to see these templates ordered the previous way, by their ship number. But I was wondering if you would post on Template talk:Cannon class destroyer escort and maybe give your reasons for changing the template. This way we can come to a consensus on how these sort of things should be. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no preference. The template doesn't display the hull numbers, so it looked like a list in random order. I had to copy the list to a text editor and sort it before I could tell for sure that a particular name was missing. Peter Grey 08:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYROM or Republic of Macedonia

After extensive edit warring, article protection, and the statement of the extended version supporting side regarding both the name of the article, and the intro paragraph, a poll has been placed. The brief version supporting side is to keep the name of the article AND the intro paragraph free of the UN name (FYROM). Keep in mind that you can select more than one of the options (8! to the moment) that may suit you. Please participate in the vote and ask other editors you know to do so too. Increased participation can make the outcome of the vote as NPOV as possible.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know? {{prod}} can have a parameter.

Hello there. You have proposed the article I.D. (album) for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 17:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Levinthal's paradox

I rewrote the article again. Could you read it, and give me some feedback on how understandable it is.... Kjaergaard 05:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality of Adolf Hitler

FYI...This article is up for vote on AFD. OSU80 01:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:LeksoAleksishvili.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:LeksoAleksishvili.jpeg. 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 17:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blogosphere

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)

Cute. Peter Grey 18:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Here is a barnstar for your tireless efforts in refuting irrational 9/11 conspiracism on Wikipedia articles and talk pages. Huysman 20:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fbi

Hi, I've continued the discussion on: Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/FBI_poster_controversy#Continued_discussion_from_talk_page. Would you please take a look? — Xiutwel (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Wally-Amos-face.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wally-Amos-face.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/September 11, 2001 Attacks.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 04:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Gratitude

Remarkable… guess we can finally move on, I'm grateful for your well thought rewording… Lovelight 13:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] for Peter

Dear Peter

Please take time to watch the following:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8526790279017094192&q=david+ray+griffin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkpOsUmp-9w&NR

best wishes

Glenn Langdell

[edit] Crowns debate

Hi Peter, I am not sure if this is any use to you anymore. I'm a member of the MLC, and just started law school. I was doing a case comment on O'Donohue v. Canada, am basically saying how Justice Rouleau wasn't careful with his choice of words. I found another case where a famous British Judge stated that the Crown is separate and divisible. This was by Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls in Regina v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Indian Association of Alberta and Others. I'm not sure if you are still arguing with AndyL, I know you were in 2005, but if you wanted to start it up again, that case should help you, everyone in the legal world knows that Lord Denning carries more weight than some lesser known justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Eddo

[edit] Wikipedia:Translation

Hello! A while ago you signed up to help translate articles from other Wikipedias at Wikipedia:Translators available.

This page has since become obsolete and has been replaced by two userbox templates.

If you are still interested in translating, you may sign up again by using one of the following userboxes on your userpage (while changing, of course, the codes according to the languages you speak):

   {{Translator|es|Spanish}} 
   {{Proofreader|fr|French}}

We hope to see you soon on Wikipedia:Translation!

[edit] Approved for AWB!

Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. I have approved your request and you should now be able to use the AWB application. Be sure to check every edit before you save it, and don't forget to check out the AWB Guide. You can get any help you need over on the AWB talk page. Feel free to contact me with any questions, Alphachimp 05:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LSloane STW100.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LSloane STW100.jpg. Unfortunately, you provided no evidence that you have paid the mandatory licensing fee to WireImage. As such, we are not permitted to use this commercial image. As WireImage vigorously protects its intellectual property, I have removed it. --Yamla 20:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cooperative Research timeline at 911 attacks article

Please assent or dissent to mediation in the 911 external timeline link matter. [2] Thanks. Abe Froman 17:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morgan Reynolds

Though you profess an admiration for Galileo, it is a pity that you do not share his unswerving commitment to the truth. There is no way you could have watched the videos I recommended to you and conclude simply that they avoid pointing the finger at anyone in particular. David Ray Griffin proves unambiguously that the 9/11 Commission Report is not merely inaccurate but a barefaced lie and an outright falsification of the events we know took place. This is clear to anyone with even a modest acquaintance with the primary source materials. Morgan Reynolds clearly states in his presentation that George Bush was part of the coterie who were behind the attacks. This is a man who was Chief Economist to Bush during his first term in office, himself a conservative republican and a Professor Emeritus at Texas A&M University. Are you to be in the company of those ecclesiastics who visited Galileo and saw with their own eyes the moons of Jupiter through the telescope that that great man invented yet put the man under house arrest until his death because the truth was unpalatable to those in power? The consequences of denial in this case will be far greater than those of the Vatican's suppression of Galileo's discoveries. Are you aware that I linked you to two different videos? User:Langdell 26th December 2006

Errors in one report by politicians do not invalidate independently verified facts. If there is a cover-up, that does not imply treason and murder; the more likely explanation would be a cover-up of negligence (which certainly appears to be the case.) Peter Grey 00:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] With Good Faith

I'm well aware of possible confusion, potential problems as well as of poor terminology we use. imo neither of the mentioned individuals should be considered (related to) conspiracy theorists… You see, that proposal was done with good faith, and it does imply experts take on the subjects as well as the take of the free artists, along with recognition of the call for answers and new investigations. It should be addressed right there, it is closely related to the aftermath of events… Honestly, you could have assumed good faith about my proposal for once, and avoid Weregerbil dramatically conspiratorial style… Lovelight 18:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you had read my comment, you would realize that my point was to underline the difference you are alluding to. Peter Grey 18:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote from Peter Grey on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks

Peter,

In the Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks discussion page under the heading: The number of U.s military deaths in iraq is equal to death in 11 sept, I found the following entry which has been attributed to yourself.

It does not have a connection with this article, because the Iraq War was not a consequence of any of the events of that day. It possibly could be justified under the Iraq War article, working backward to the Iraq-Al Qaeda mythology that was fabricated before the invasion. Peter Grey 05:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I found your comment fascinating. Do you truly believe that the subsequent Iraq War was not a consequence of the events of 9-11? That is to say, you believe the Iraq War as it happened, and when it happened would have taken place without the events of 9-11?

I'm sorry to raise the point here as an edit, but your email address appears unavailable.

Regards James

James: The Iraq War is, perhaps, not wholly disconnected from the 11 September attacks, but there is no cause and effect relationship between the actions of the highjackers and the Iraq War. The attacks did not implicate Iraq in terrorism, nor did they affect the timing (the timing was due to the 2002 US election cycle), nor did they cause the negligent conduct of the war. The effect that the 11 September attacks did have was to allow Little George to exploit his country's insecurities. Peter Grey 02:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter,

I'll start by saying sorry, my question was somewhat derisive, and also for being unable to go into detail in the paragraphs that follow.

In the interest of preventing a semantic argument I think the term "condition" rather than "consequence" or "cause" would best describe the events of 9-11 in this context. So the question becomes; is this condition necessary and/or sufficient for war? Which you would clearly say "no" to necessary, and to get my cards on the table I would say it was necessary and I feel probably sufficient, albeit from my UK bias.

From a UK perspective towards the end of 2002 our government was pushing the Al-Qaida link having failed to motivate the public with the WMD argument. This was used as a pretext for all manner of policies, including military intervention. All of this was farcical considering Iraq was actually fundamentally opposed to Islamic Fundamentalism, unlike the UK and the US with its ties to Saudi Arabia. But that's another issue. The message put across was terrorism and rogue states (namely Iraq) were the problem. The media of course played ball.

Our UK government clearly felt that they needed to coax the people into supporting military intervention into Iraq. Pre-9-11 the word terrorist was used in Britain to describe Irishmen who planted bombs in the UK (heavily supported/funded by US citizens I might add). To know for certain that without 9-11 the UK government would have backed an invasion based solely on the WMD argument and therefore without the terrorist card is difficult to comprehend. Not impossible of course. Hence my position.

It should be pointed out that in the end our government settled for simply a morality argument.

Now most of us are aware that the US actually stepped up military action in the Iraq NFZ in 1998. In fact Clinton changed the rules of engagement in that year. Bush went further still. But this coupled with the crippling sanctions does not necessarily mean they were ultimately going to war. The UK admitted this change in 1999 claiming it was "self defence". This, and the increase in 2001 had no UN backing and was technically a violation of international law. Perhaps they expected an Iraq retaliation, perhaps not.

Now again I'm sorry for stressing this from my UK perspective, so I now have another question; do you think the UK support for the war was a necessary condition?

I must also ask, did you purposefully mean to be derogatory with the term Little George or is that common parlance in the US?

Regards James

I call Bush "Little George" to belittle his character, judgment and intellect. I am not familiar with US colloquialisms. Your observation towards the end of 2002 our government was pushing the Al-Qaida link is telling: the "link" did not exist on 11 September 2001 - it had to be manufactured almost a year later. I personally have no doubt that, without the hijackings, Little George would have been just as destructive to his country's finances, military, reputation, etc., but clearly other tactics to generate the insecurity and paranoia that he exploited would have been needed.
The involvement of the UK is puzzling. Little George definitely would not have cared - the value in persuading the rest of his country is not clear. Do you believe the UK decision was influenced by the attacks, separate from the campaign of fear and misinformation that followed? Peter Grey 00:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter,

The need to call him names seems counter productive to me. Like when black men call each other nigger. I understand the need to gain control when we seemingly have so little, but this is not the way to do it.

As I also alluded to in my previous edit, the Al-Quaida link was indeed manufactured. Manufactured or not, it makes no difference in terms of the momentum it gained as a pretext for war.

Yes, I agree governments can stir up insecurity, but nothing would compare to 9-11. Even now, years later, to even question the events, putting aside foolish opinionated theories. To even state facts, still brings about resentment from many.

The UK involvement has much to do with a small clique of the Labour party, with Tony Blair at its head, who seem to strive for Churchillian like statesmanship. He saw an opportunity to be a player, to be remembered and he jumped straight at it. Would I have been brave enough to resist such allure? Maybe not.

Interestingly enough his likely successor is already making noises about changing the relationship between the UK and the US.

To answer your final question; you cannot separate the misinformation (the campaign of fear you speak of) from the events of 9-11. They both played a huge part in manipulating public opinion. However, I do not believe the UK would have joined an Iraq invasion without the events of 9-11. Our government struggled to gain popular support and without 9-11 I believe it would have been too difficult a task. I'm not saying they do not want war or that they would not attempt to engineer war, this I cannot know. I'm simply saying it seems to me unlikely that war would have taken place without the events of 9-11.

As for the US, I think George Bush and his supporters did care about the UK support, and indeed welcomed it. Did they need it for war? I'm undecided on that. Did they need 9-11? I think they did.

All the best, James

[edit] 9/11: Press for Truth

Good call re the 911CT template. With hindsight it has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Fiddle Faddle 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks is now on RfA

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration for more details and add your tuppence to the debate... — Rickyrab | Talk 18:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lango

What do you think about Lango? Flavis 12:21, 16 March 2007

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/t/User_talk%7EPeter_Grey_4951.html"