User talk:Dscotese
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Collapse of the World Trade Center. 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. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Arthur. I did look at the talk pages and the arguments about molten metal. Doesn't it violate NPOV if the section presents only the position that the conspiracy theory was rejected without representing the external references (however flawed they may be) upon which it is based? Dscotese (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of 99 Burning
A tag has been placed on 99 Burning requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. скоморохъ 03:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 9/11
I thank you for your -partial- support in the passport matter ! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't encourage people to break the law. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Anonymous whistleblowers
Please don't add irrelevant material like that. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussion of how to improve articles not to push our own opinions whatever they may be. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- As a conspiracy theorist myself, I am well aware of the implicit threat to those close to the conspirators. For this reason, I started looking up "anonymous whistleblowing" on Google. I would recommend this search to anyone who feels pressured into defending positions with which they are becoming more and more disillusioned.
- Martin Luther King Jr. (yes the one who was assassinated April 4, 1968) said "Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right." Dscotese (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
I thank you for you above contribution to Talk:9/11. I like Kings' quote, and quoted you above. I do understand though, why it was deleted there. You seemingly were trying to help people make the right choice, where they are convinced they need no help! I am currently involved in mediation on the name of an article - that's how small the steps are here... Keep doing what you feel is right, Dscotese, and thank you. But be mindful that the herd may not be able to follow you, and that they will turn on you when you push them to hard. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] March 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Haemo (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RE: POV tags someone else added were removed...
Unfortunately, I will not edit the article. It was protected due to the obvious edit war between several users. Remember, protection is not an endorsement of the protected version. I invite you to discuss, on the articles talk page, the re-addition of the POV tags, and if a consensus is reached you can use Template:Edit protected. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] PureVolume
PureVolume is essentially a series of MySpace-esque pages where bands can put up their MP3s and promto themselves however they see fit. It is not an object second party source, and does not discuss the grunge genre in any form. The labels affixed to bands are essentially meaningless for research purposes. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] request your input in a consensus survey re 9/11
Dear Dscotese,
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:
-
- "The current form of the 9/11 article is at odds with the WP:NPOV policy, and the proposed inclusion of the fact that Michael Meacher alleges the US government of willfully not preventing the attacks, would make the article better, in stead of worse.
I would appreciate it when you could take a look. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
