User talk:SalvNaut/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jones' plans

Hi. I started responding on the Jones talk page but my response doesn't really have anything to do with the article so...

I think the most interesting paper Jones could write (though it may require him to bone up on some engineering) would be one that challenges Bazant's energy calculations, i.e., his confident claim that the potential energy of the tops of the towers was at least an order of magnitude greater than what the lower portion was able to support. Though I'm not qualified to assess his calculations, Bazant seems to ignore the core columns, and does most of his modeling in two dimensions (a cross section of the building's structure.) A paper like that (directly responding to Bazant's) could/should be published in Structural Engineering ASCE (where Bazant's is forthcoming). Actually, I think the fact that such a paper has been published is a little embarrassing for CT'ers in precisely the way Mongo normally suggests. However, it would not surprise me if political concerns factor into the editorial decisions of engineering journals (as is well known in other scientific disciplines).

Anyway, what a strange experience Wikipedia is! Thanks for being there.--Thomas Basboll 13:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oooops. I meant "the fact that such a paper has NOT been published..."--Thomas Basboll 15:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

9/11 split AfD

I think you may misunderstand me. I am wholly infavour of splitting this article. I am simply not in favour of making a monumental cockup. If we retain the currently split article there is the huge danger of retaining a genuine POV fork that was created in error. I believe that we have to delete the currently debated article, and then resplit, boldly and correctly. Done properly thuis will create a far better set of articles. Fiddle Faddle 11:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you are wholly infavour of splitting. I just don't feel a such strong need to follow the protocols. The situation seems clear to me - the split has to be done, most people agree about it, arguments of the other side are not strong enough (they keep repeating POV fork argument). I understand though, that the other side may think differently :). I belive that admins and ppl with experience will do the right thing. There is a quite long and fruitful discussion about splitting on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Please join and express your thoughts. --SalvNaut 12:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? :) Finally I understood what is wrong here - your username is Timtrent and you keep using FiddleFaddle nickname :) heh, that's really misleading when you look on the watchlist. No problem though - I can live with that :) --SalvNaut 12:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

(I created the id, then created the nickname. I was surprised the way the wiki software handled it, but by the time I'd worked it out I had written and signed a lot of messages etc, so too late to change it. Its valid, but cionfusing. Many others have a nickname as well as a user ID.) I see another editor has been bold and made what may well be the correct split. Good for him. It's not protocol I want to follow blindly. It's just that this has got so far "incorrectly" that I fear (feafed?) we would throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm hopeful that it will now be resolved well. Fiddle Faddle 20:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Gladio

Hi, I noticed your interest in Gladio, I thought you might be interested in this also: a friend of mine in Le Monde Diplo interviewed Dr. Ganser on Gladio and 9.11 (Ganser Interview). Self-Described Seabhcán 13:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for this - very interesting, it's good that people around the world start to take a close look. One thought:

a citation about WTC7: "But then several professors [of] building safety, to whom I presented this claim here in Switzerland, said it was not possible. It was just a small fire - it could not bring down this big building as fast as 7 seconds."

I think that those professors should be interviewed, they even should write an academic paper about it (is WTC7 design scheme available to look into?). --SalvNaut 13:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is some information on the FEMA and NIST websites, but as they haven't completed the final report yet, I think everything isn't there (it may never be). There is a professor of fire safety in either the University of Glasgow or Edinburg that has attempted to recreate the WTC fires. He has published a number of interesting papers on the subject, but he does not claim that the fires didn't knock down the towers, simply that it is not known how they did. Self-Described Seabhcán 20:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please contribute to Straw Poll

Hi, we are having a straw poll in order to save the "9/11 Conspiracies" page from generalized disorganization. Could you please help us out by casting your vote [here]? Thanks --146.115.123.152 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Please observe the three revert rule before trying to edit again on the Collapse of the World Trade Center article...thanks.--MONGO 10:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but I'd prefer you to discuss your reverts on the discussion page.

the matter was discussed on the one article, you then take it to a subarticle and start pushing this stuff there, the exact same nonsense.--MONGO 19:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Association of 9/11 All Sides Editors

I wanted to invite you to join a new WikiProject I have started called Association of 9/11 All Sides Editors. The main goal will be to patrol the 9/11 articles in an organized manner to help stop the abuse of the delete process which, judging by some of your comments in recent 9-11 related AfD pages, you are quite familiar with. I dug into the histories of some of the people on there trying real hard to push the deletion through and I see that it is part of a larger, organized attempt to get rid of everything other than the articles that they agree with on the topic. Not surprisingly, one of them proposed my project for deletion within a couple hours of creation. If you want to learn more about the idea, please see Wikipedia:Association_of_9/11_All_Sides_Editors. --Shortfuse 11:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Controlled demolition AfD request

Hi, an admin recommended I ask someone else to make note of this, per this comment by User:JoshuaZ. Would you be willing per that advice to post that/draw attention to the fact of the previous AfD and the people involved? It seems that this article was AfD'd again immediately after the last ended. I suspect that MONGO will become incensed if I do it myself, as we both MONGO and myself got blocked over this from edit warring. I'm asking 1-2 other editors as well. I am asking you as you've participated in the AfD, and Joshua recommended I do this. Thanks. · XP · 04:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh,oh... hi... I've been absent for a while, and I am gone withing few moments. I hope the case has been resolved - is Clarification by Thomas Basboll enough? Anyway, I whish you (and all of us) a lot of patience, peacfulness and persistance when interacting with Mongo. Cheers! SalvNaut 14:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

if you could keep me apprised?

I created a special page for my own use at User:XP/PendingDeletionsofNote. If you should happen to see any AfDs, MfDs, etc., that you think I should know about, please feel free to update this page to notify me--it works for me as an include to both my User and Talk page, so I will see it. I unfortunately don't always have time to look at the whole listings of those sections, or keep up. This will help a lot. Also, if you want, feel free to help yourself to using it as well on your own page. I added instructions for the curious in case they don't know fancy wikicode. Feel free to let anyone else know about my page and it's function--I don't mind more people knowing about, so that I can be aware. · XP · 06:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

users who accuse

I was also tempted to leave a message requesting the cessation of accusations. I wonder if it might work better if we all handle the points made in detail, but ignore anything that accuses. Different people interact in different ways. That's fine. But if we react back we may develop a war rather than an article. If it becomes really difficult we can take a different view :) Fiddle Faddle 20:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Your dignity and patience surprise me as always. :) You are right, of course. My opinion is that one has to "bite back" sometimes - maybe this was not the case. I have no intention to engage in any war. I'll do my best. SalvNaut 20:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I am old enough and ugly enough to ignore pretty much anything :) I tend to take a view that, deprived of oxygen, a fire will go out by itself. I can have my buttons pressed, but it takes a lot. If you want to see real patience, have a look at my talk page archives for discussions with a user Yy-bo. Eventually I was assertive, but it took a while :) A less amusing one was one I had to take to mediation. Display infinite patience and state a case simply. But only back down when in error, and then do it swiftly and with humility. I have no idea whether this was the right time to bite back or note. I just feel we must not get distracted or another AfD will overtake the article. Fiddle Faddle 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, You've lost me

Your edit history note: "nothing important) FiddleFaddle: I'd prefer you to copy it instead of divide so the overall meaning of the first comment stays the same :)" I didn't know I'd split aything! Care to enlighten me? please?  :)

Oh, I am so sorry. It wasn't you. My comment has been split and new section has been created and it changed a bit the overall meaning of my comment. As it turns out, Thomas did it. Instead of looking at the page history I took the first person (you) that replied to Mmx1 to be the splitter. Again, I'm sorry for my innacuarcy and rash.SalvNaut 20:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry. I guess it's natural since I seem to be acting as sheepdog on a few admin things anyway :) I was just lost and wanted to make sure I hadn't done something silly Fiddle Faddle 21:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what tag to use for the collapse image?

Hi Salvnut,

I wrote back to Aman Zafar with the proper format this time, specifying the page it would be used on, etc., and he again agreed to allow the use of his pictures (he said "as long as I'm not responsible," and even noted the images are now improved resolution on his site). I just don't know what tag to use! I can do all the rest of it. Do you know? It's the image with one tower standing and the other collapsing. bov 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, actually I've never done it but I've checked Wikipedia:Uploading_images#Fair_use_images and I guess that Wikipedia:Fair use license would be ok. Does Aman Zafar recognizes the fact that he is about to release his picture for wide use under some license? If I were to release a picture on Wikipedia it would be "Fair use" license and from what you've written it seems that Aman Zafar would agree, too. If you think this is the case you can use one of those tags Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use.

Oh! I've just read on Wikipedia:Fair use:

Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious.

So maybe it's wiser to ask Aman if he prefers to release his image on one of the Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Free_licenses? SalvNaut 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

{{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|restrictions}} could be appropriate if Aman wants to have a link to his page under the picture. SalvNaut 22:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Steorn "Facts"

Saying that the ad costs £75k is (a) speculation (can you cite how much standard Economist rates are?) and (b) in any case implies, which I don't understand anyone has substantiated, that Steorn actually paid exactly that much.

If this is an Economist Prank, which no-one has refuted, Steorn may not have paid anything.

Until you can provide some notable evidence for the assumption, not a "fact" at all. ElectricRay 21:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Out of the blue, you show up at another editor's talkpage to launch a personal attack...[1]. Surely, you know the policy regarding this, but if you don't, please read up on it. Thanks.--MONGO 13:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedians engaging in debate is an essential part of the culture of Wikipedia." The debate was ongoing and already missed the topic, one of the comments struck me, I've decided to comment. Personally, I've found criticism towards me very instructive in the past and it allowed me to have a broader look on myself. That's said I of course adhere to the policy and no real excuse for me here. SalvNaut 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, there's no excuse for comments such as this one either[2].--MONGO 10:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. [3] --Regebro 20:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I adjusted the comment a bit.[4] I'm sorry, my words surely could've been read as offensive. SalvNaut 00:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment removed

I removed your comments here as you are not permitted to create dis-endoresement sections on an RfC, please use the talk page if you would like to offer a rebuttal to something. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 16:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I blocked you and User:Golbez for violating WP:3RR on September 11, 2001 attacks for 24 hours. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

September 11th attacks

I may be blocked now. If you could help maintain the template it's a {{NPOV}} template that's added to the top of the page. Thanks. --Cplot 18:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Then they will block me to... There is more of them. We need more editors to fight them this way. Other way I think could be putting up RfC to draw "the community eye" to this case. Article is biased for sure. It repeats myths about 9/11 without proper perspective. SalvNaut 18:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Organization - that's what is needed here. SalvNaut 18:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Demand retraction of comment immediately

Tbeatty mentioned Occam's Razor and you then stated "Be careful with razors, you can cut something important."[5]...next time I see you suggesting bodily harm, I will block you indefinitely. You best remove that comment...now.--MONGO 12:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo! For crying out loud (and by using the phrase "crying out loud" I do not intend to imply that I will make you cry out loud) This accusation is insane (and by insane I do not mean to suggest a threat to dunk you in the Parisian river). You really need to take yourself less seriously (and by "take yourself" I imply no threat of theft) SalvNaut's comment was clearly a joke and suggesting otherwise is clearly disingenuous. I suggest you immediately retract your threat to block SalvNaut. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 14:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Staring blindly, with astonishment, I keep wondering - is it a rare, beautiful example, the artistic manifestation of Mongo's sophisticated sense of humour? Suddenly, I blink and visions fall apart. Was it real, or merely a phantom? What is the ulterior sense to all? SalvNaut 14:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Retract the comment you mentioned or I will block you...not sure how long at this point. That artricle is a hotbed, so any allusion, no matter how vague, of personal injury has to given zero tolerance. No one is threatening you...you are being told how to act...either act civiliy, or find yourself blocked.--MONGO 15:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no allusion of personal injury, vague or otherwise. Mongo, I suggest you go for a walk or something and calm down - you're just making a fool of yourself. --Tango 16:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, for reassuring me that I still can see where up and down is (I suspected my English language imperfections for a while). SalvNaut 16:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, SalvNaut. Just to note, I opened an AN/I on Mongo's threats to block, and Mongo has just warned Tango too [6] ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Retracting my comment about a block. I urge you to not make allusions which may be percieved as threats of personal harm. Thanks.--MONGO 17:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, you were the only one to percieve it as you did. I urge you not to read between the lines in such manner. Thanks. SalvNaut 19:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

arbitration

I have opened a case of arbitration at Requests for arbitration:Seabhcan--MONGO 08:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109^Talk 23:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Seabhcan

I can see the block is a bit controversial, but I'm still leaning toward declining his request. He is welcome to ask for a second opinion via {{unblock}}, of course. You might post to WP:AN about it, if you like, but it looks like there's already an arbitration case opened that's at least partially regarding this whole thing, and it's hard to get much more attention than that. Your call if you'd like to post it there. Luna Santin 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I reacted mainly because there is the arbitration case opened. And many of those involved in this arbcom edit Operation Gladio article. Seabhcan does a good job there, provides sources, discusses. He might have lost his nerves once or twice but if you take a close look at the arbcom, you will see that this was not without reason. And there are editors like NuclearUmpf, who do not share his views but have no problem with coediting with him. Seabhcan is away for about a week. If you be so kind, and find it appropriate to repost on Seabhcan's page your opinion presented here, that you find this block controversial. (so it's not used as an argument in his present arbcom) SalvNaut 00:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Permission to edit and add too

You have my permission to edit and add too Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Travb as you see fit. Travb (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

I made only 3 reverts. First edit was not a revert, I left a source and a sentence which Weregerbil has added. I did not violate 3rr rule, I discussed my edits. I feel it is unjustified block. User:SalvNaut 19:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Still looks like 4R to me. But you can try {{unblock|why}} if you feel hard done by. Don't go around editing as anon, though William M. Connolley 20:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[7] made on December 3 2006 to 9/11 conspiracy theories

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 19:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

<<unblock|1= I was blocked for allegedly breaking 3rr rule. I didn't do it. Here is the history of my 5 edits today: firstly, I introduced new sentence and a source[8], then after User:Weregerbil made an edit, I made another edit[9] in which I changed some of his words and removed a source. And here "fun" begins. (only 3 more edits to go). I was reverted by Tbeatty with a summary:"rv - the inlcuded material is germane, factual, sourced andrelatively small.". I restored my wording and left source and sentence introduced by Wergerbil (trying to reach consensus)[10] (and a quick fix after[11]). Then, I was reverted by AudeVivere with summary:"rv, should be included". This could indicate that he didn't even bother to look on my edit because the only source he could have in mind was already there.(I left it in the article - never removed). I "revert"[12] and start to write a discussion on the talk page. Before I manged to post it, came Cberlet and reverted my edit (he is the first one with a meaningful summary - good for him). I disagreed and made a revert[13] . The last one is the only "real" revert, in my opinion, as it was directly connected with disagreement with other editors (not to their mistakes as the second one, the first one of those 3 was a try to reach consensus). And even if you count all reverts, you'll find that there are only 3 of them. Then, I started to discuss with Weregerbil on the talk page. Then came Tom harrison and made a revert of me, but I didn't even managed to consider what to do, when I was blocked. This is unjustified block. Please reconsider my situation. Thanks. SalvNaut 23:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)>>

Block not reviewed -- already expired. Apologies for the delay. --  Netsnipe  ►  01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Directed Energy Weapons

Regarding you unwarranted rv of the Star Wars Beam Weapon on Steven Jones discussion page:

If you're actually studying Mathematics and Computer Science, you should know something about "looking at information", and that's what I'd advise you to do.

Also, if you're a Jones supporter I recommend you check these links:

Jones Alters Colors of Ground Zero Photograph to Deceive People

Youtube Video: Steven Jones Sabotaged The Development Of Free Energy (Segment from Heavy Watergate film below)

Google Video: "Phenomenon Archives: Heavy Watergate, the War Against Cold Fusion" (Fast forward to 11:00 for segment on Jones.)

Google this: Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate? A peer-review of Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research

Infinite Energy Magazine: Breaking Through Editorial: Ethics in the Cold Fusion Controversy

The Dark Side Of Professor Steven E. Jones

Professor Steven Jones Trashes The Demolition Evidence

Scholars For 9/11 Plagiarism And Disinformation

Cold Fusion's CIA Mole (Analysis MP3 of Jones' work)

Kings 32 05:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am a student. So after studying links that you have posted my opinion is: I do not find this evidence convincing. More: I find it flawed and disinformation look-alike. It's a slander at a person. SalvNaut 17:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how you believe it is flawed. (btw, you could not have gone through all that material in such a short amount of time.) Kings 32 11:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Myron Evans

Assertions that appear on Evans' website are unverifiable and therefore inappropriate as references on a biographical stub. His blog at present dismisses all mainstream physics journals. Evans' books are self-published vanity publications. If you wish to make a scientific point, please open up a thread on the discussion page for the Myron Evans wikipedia entry. --Mathsci 00:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it unreasonable to name AIAS site a blog, that's it. And yes, of course, mainstream physics and Evans are not too fond of each other. What do you mean by "dismisses all mainstream physics journals."? Have he explicitly stated so? SalvNaut 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Atomic precision is a mostly non-functional mirror of www.aias.us. Please explain why you have added this and allowed the references to Bruhn and 't Hooft to be removed. By the way, if you read Evans' blog, you will see that Evans does indeed dismiss all mainstream physics journals. Kindly do your homework before editing this biographical stub. Mathsci 00:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've found atomic precision to be a better organized site. I don't know what is the rationale for including Bruhn's site. Maybe some link to a journal refutting Evans can be provided? Anyway, I should have reverted the link, it should stay. For those interested, who know Riemannian and Cartan geometry better than me, it should be clear if Bruhn is correct or not. SalvNaut 03:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped. For misuse of his administrative tools, as well as disruptive conduct in edit warring and incivility, Seabhcan is desysopped. Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 08:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

911 Conspiracy Theories/Alternative Theories

Why dont we focus on identifying individual points of objection at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Why_dont_the_Oppose_and_Agree_camps.3F instead of having long winded debates that cover 2 or 3 subjects The we we know everyones objections either way, we can work out a compromise on each point with a view to reaching a consensus. "Snorkel | Talk" 09:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll: External timeline in 911 attacks article

Since you have been involved with the 911 attacks article in the past, you might be interested in voting in a straw poll on an external timeline currently used in the article. [14] . Thanks. Abe Froman 18:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please assent or dissent to mediation in the 911 external timeline link matter. [15] Thanks. Abe Froman 17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, AfD was inevitable

And I am sure that, should the controlled demolition hypothesis article survive this one there will be more and more and more. It seems a shame that people seem to confuse the hypothesis itself with an article which documents that the hypothesis exists and states what that hypothesis is. Peer Review was always likely to trigger an AfD, but writing any article is a risk when it covers a political hot potato. Wikipedia's strength is its weakness: it allows ordinary people to edit. In general good sense prevails, but this process does rather interrupt the flow and reduce motivation. Fiddle Faddle 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Build up your weaknesses until they become your strong points.". Wikipedia is on a good way here, I hope. People (editors) learn faster than newcomers arrive, so the overall quality keeps getting better and better. Will it last forever? (if so Wikipedia might gain conciousness like SkyNet did :) SalvNaut 02:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Steorn Edit

Steorn and Legal Problems —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A1trips (talk • contribs) 23:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Was working on the references when you chose to step in.

Please realize that people spread across time zones are involved.

The moment i get one substantive reference, I will revert that page

A1

If you provide a good reference, I'll look into it for sure. The leaked name might eventually find its place in the article but only when supported with a good, reliable, source. Otherwise it would be a gossip only, so no place for such in the article. The article about Steorn has suffered much, and still is suffering, from unsustained, speculative information in it. It's not good to add any more of that. A typical reader faced with too many facts he cannot verify won't assign any meaning to them at all. SalvNaut 00:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Mongo RfC

FYI, I have now posted an RfC on Mongo's behaviour.9.--Thomas Basboll 19:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I see that Peter Grey referred to Lovelight's changes as vandalism, but in your revert of Tom Harrison here, you seem to indicate he has been using this phrase and that he is slandering(?)...you might want to adjust your comments or offer an apology or clarification to Mr. Harrison. But that is up to you of course.--MONGO 19:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I of course referred to others using the word "vandalism", while myself using first word that I found in my personal, selective vocabulary of English. Edit summary is not a good place for discussion. SalvNaut 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. :-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI

have you seen this discussion at the village pump?

9/11 at Politics.Wikia.Com

I thought you might be interested to see this.

Welcome...

...to the League of Truth Suppression. [16] ;-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:) Every stick has two ends (y.. sometimes 3 or more). You've meant League of Other Truth Suppression of course. ...or was it Other League of Truth Suppression? or maybe Suppression of Other League of Truth?[17]. I look forward to fulfilling my duties in future. SalvNaut 03:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Socks and Steven E. Jones

Sorry. I thought that was the 3RR sequence with the anon editor, which you could very well be while forgetting to log in. You almost certainly aren't User:MarkCentury. Do I need to apologize on the article talk page, also?

That being said, books are rarely "peer-reviewed", so we would a note from the publisher's or editor's web page to that effect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As for the book, it was specifically meant to be a set of essays by intellectuals, and those essays indeed went through a series of peer reviews. Of course, critics will criticize that no structural engineer reviewed Jones's paper, or no serious scientific journal did so. However, peer-review is a process that is supposed to remove obvious and less obvious errors and omissions from a paper, and guarantee it's scientific quality with respect to methodology, not to prove it correct. Now, the goal of Jones, which he stated a couple of times, is to have his paper (a one being prepared now) peer-reviewed and published in a respectful scientific journal. In not so distant future we may hear something about it. With what result? I don't know. SalvNaut 23:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR David Ray Griffin

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Ray Griffin. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Just a heads up. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh... that would be with you having the same number of edits as you. Thank you so much for the information.SalvNaut 10:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you were one ahead of me at the time (3 vs. 2). But you're certainly welcome to use THAT comment as proof that I was aware of 3RR if I later violated it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked...

From where exactly did you copy "Jones points out ..."? When we use summary style, I think we summarize the existing article, not a previous version. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It was copy paste + edit, and yes, it was a bit lazy of me to do it this way.. but please check the sources - they are ok I think and can be used to source summarized claims. SalvNaut 21:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Lazy" was not what I thought when I saw it, but that approach does open up some avenues for us both I guess. I'll look in tomorrow. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"lazy" - it may be not, many of these lines were written/improved/sourced by me some time ago... but, I'm done for today, too (this copypasting is so exhausting - ends never stick :) SalvNaut 22:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems we have a revert war on our hands

The 9/11 conspiracy theory you have helped contribute to has went through a little revert war lately without any seeming consensus. Im at my revert limit, but i though you might take a look and chime in (i assuming you woudl support re-reverting, but i leave that up to you of course). anywhere here is the revert i feel needs to be undone, hope youll check it out: Revert Me Debeo Morium 07:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just logged in and I'll be checking that. SalvNaut 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it again (although that put me at the 3rr limit). However if yesterday is any indication the same guy will just re-revert it im sure. So keep an eye on it(ill notify you if that happens, as i wont revert again without support) Debeo Morium 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Too bad, I can't edit now. I've read the talk page and tried to understand what are the arguments of opponents but they seem very vague. They bring "synthesis" which I do not agree with because the paragraph does not makes any conclusions, it just presents the reader with reports that inspired Jones and others to formulating thermite hypothesis, and thermite hypothesis, and any other conclusion, should be (and i think is) attributed to Jones. The paragraph could be a bit more summarized probably. Happy and less stressful :) editing! SalvNaut 22:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that what i thought. I cant see how they felt the FEMA quote was out of context, but from my talk conversations with them i dont think they even read it. Debeo Morium 23:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)