User talk:Thomas Basboll
I have edited the essay on SPAs adding a common misuses section which lists misuses specified in the 2009 discussions that did not seem to be disagreed with (except the user page one was not brought up, but thats probably because it is so obvious). Anyways I want to make sure the essay stays neutral so I am asking members who made comments on the talk page to review the changes and make suggestions on the talk page. There is also a discussion of potential other misuses that could be added to the list but are slightly more controversial, and hence I did not add them immediately, but rather am looking for consensus first.MATThematical (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I know you have a million restriction on your edits, but there is an editor who is being shanked in the same way you were shanked, so at the least you could maybe email him, giving him a little moral support.
Keep up the good fight, I almost completely disagree with what you say, but I think you should have the right to say it. Okip 21:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thomas, please remove your post at WP:AE#Request lifting of topic-ban since it's not in the proper form. Follow the advice the of The Devil's Advocate to use the template. Then we will be happy to review your appeal. Also, the idea that your ban should be lifted because one point of view is not sufficiently represented will not be very persuasive. You should emphasize your willingness to find reliable sources and to follow consensus. You should also explain in your own words why you were banned originally. Then you could say why things are different now. I confess that Raul654's original ban rationale is not totally obvious to me. He did not give a complete explanation, though a more thorough study of your edits might justify it. You would be helping us out if you will provide links to where your previous behavior on 9/11 was discussed. For example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango/Evidence#Evidence presented by User:MONGO appears relevant, though it's just one person's opinion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
"On August 20, 2012, the last mentions of conspiracy theories were finally removed from the article about the collapse of the World Trade Center." You're quite wrong. As per Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_56#RfC:_Conspiracy_theories_link (an RfC that I was proud to start), there is a link to the appropriate article from the appropriate section. Please don't Meatball:GoodBye. --GRuban (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- We're talking about different articles. You're talking about the 9/11 article, I'm talking about the collapse of the World Trade Center. The one small positive contribution that my appeal to ArbCom resulted in was to have a "see also" link put into the collapse article . But it remains true that Wikipedia does not want to be place where one can go to be actually informed about the content and status of the alternative theories about 9/11. (Many readers of the collapse article are seeking information to help them decide whether one or another conspiracy theory is right, or just partly right, about some particular fact. They now meet an article that pretends those theories, and a great many facts that the theories cite, sometimes entirely correctly, don't exist. So their questions remain unanswered and their quest continues, often needlessly.) It's an editorial line that has been determined by consensus. So long as it stands, I've got nothing to contribute. And I'm not allowed to contribute, anyway.--Thomas B (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)