User talk:Shortfuse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] Personal attacks
This "small minded" person (as per your statement at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Wikipedia:Association of 9/11 All Sides Editors) actually did go on record as saying there that he welcomes the factual, NPOV, discussion of the subject, despite the fact that he personally believes that the subject under discussion is driven almost exclusively by partisanship on the proponent side, and that there is another proposed project, mentioned on that page, that is much more balanced and less heated than your page or, so far as I can see, yourself. Please refrain from continuing these pointless, hotheaded attacks. While I do disagree with you on the subject, I welcome any neutral content you may be able to provide on it, and don't think that your recent actions, if continued, make it very likely that you will be in a position to contribute anything on the subject in the future. Calm down, please. Badbilltucker 00:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I was speaking of no person in paticular, but rather everyone all at once and no one all at the same time. And I have gotten over it. I'll keep doing what I do but it just wont have an assocation. I'll stick it on my userpage. In fact, I have already started to do so. --Shortfuse 00:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alternatives to your WikiProject
Hi. If you are interested in making the 9/11 articles as neutral as possible, there are some related WikiProjects:
and Wikiprojects related to that:
Rather than focusing on AfDs, I'd reccomend researching various points of view contradictory to the American government's one, especially ones that are more notable. (However, note that WP:NPOV#Undue_weight does say that, "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them.")
More notable than conspiracy theories from countries that are predominantly Christian/pro-War on Terror might be an Islamic perspective. For example, according to someone I know who went to Egypt, the Egyptians believe that the United States government arranged for the 9/11 attacks to happen. You would have to find a reliable source for this. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/stalinsky200409160708.asp confirms it, but is opposed to the Egyptian opinion, and I'm not sure you can trust the article to accurately portray someone else's point of view, but you could probably use it as a source for saying that the Egyptian point of view is disputed.
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP42302 provides more information on the Egyptian point of view, including (most likely translated) quotations. However, it is still from a the website of a group holding a different point of view than the Egyptians, and might not be a trustworthy source for the Egyptian point of view. It does, however, provide references to some offline sources which may be of interest to you, if you can find and translate them.
Best of luck,
Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Test of Message Box Link
Test of message box link.
[edit] Village Pump Discussion related to 9/11
Have you seen the discussions going on at the village pump --Cplot 07:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] please respond
I don't think we're getting anywhere I would like to be with wikipedia. I fear it will increasingly be a free (no charge) but not free (self-censored) accumulation of selected knowledge. How do you feel for starting over from scrap? Please respond at: Wikipedia talk:911 POV disputes#next.
— Xiutwel (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tmt1 l.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Tmt1 l.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hi there
we once met back in 2006. You may be interested that I've taken up that discussion again at: Talk:9/11 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bmlogo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Bmlogo.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
