User talk:Lovelight

welcome

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for contributing! Did you know you can link to articles in Wikipedia by placing double square brackets around the name of the article you want to link to ([[like this]])? And if you want the word to show up as one word, but link to an article with a different name, you can "pipe" the link [[like|this]]. You can get other hints at Wikipedia:tutorial and Wikipedia:introduction. Again, welcome, and let me know on [[user talk:delldot|my talk page if you want to discuss anything or if there's anything I can help with. Peace, delldot | talk 18:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Starforce

Hi, Lovelight. Don't worry that your first steps into the world of Wikipedia have been difficult. From what I have seen from your contributions so far it is clear that you are a passionate, thoughtful person who is willing to put some effort into trying to create something good. In other words, you would be a great Wikipedian :P Anyway, I'm a little preoccupied at the moment with things unrelated to WP, but you can rest assured that I will be keeping a close eye on the StarForce article to ensure that there is no bias or unverified information that survives or creeps in the article. I hope you'll stick around and contribute more to our encyclopedia. There are over a million subjects to write about, so if you find that you run into conflicts there are surely other articles where your contributions will be more welcome. I noticed you said you were writing an article for a gaming magazine. In case you're interested, me and a few other Wikipedians run the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, where we would certainly appreciate your input in the discussion. Take care and hope to see you around! Cheers, jacoplane 23:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

LInkspam

Please stop adding linkspam to article talkpages as you have been doing repeatedly to [1] the September 11, 2001 attacks article. It does nothing to help us make the article better. Thanks.--MONGO 07:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you're here to disrupt...start being productive and stop insulting others.[2]--MONGO 12:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the other way around Mongo, and you know it… --Lovelight

Your Myspace?

Hi Lovelight, is that your myspace URL on the 'user page' ?

Nope, not my doing… That movie is particularly good tool, that's all. Have you seen this trailer? Lovelight 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I read through your completely valid and important points at the 9/11 discussion page. I gotta say that Mongo is a fucking imbecile by the sounds of his text entries.. and to think people like him are admins here? *shudders* I quit contributing to wiki months ago after doing it for around 1 year. The arseholes who admin and pseudo-admin this page site are fucking legion and insufferable imo, cocksuckers like that brainwashed missing link get my fucking goat no end.

Oh, but you shouldn’t have leaved, it is sad whenever quorum leaves forum:)… Stick around, arguments are arguments, logic is logical, Mongo and his drugz will bow to the facts… Lovelight 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

These links may be old to you, but if not def visit plz.. very esp this 1st one which has a 1 hour documentary / lecture which led me to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. The ppl putting forward the evidence and theories are professors, civil engineers and M.I.T. physics graduates with decades of theoretical and practical experience in the laws of thermodynamics and physics and also in reality. (<--- you listening Mongo?)

http://911revisited.com <---- 1 hour film here, essential viewing bro!

http://www.reopen911.org/

best wishes bro, The Late Great Bill Hicks

Thanks brother…this sort of data will be referenced sooner then later… Lovelight 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This documentary is also essential viewing Lovelight.

"9/11 Mysteries" (watch this and learn about controlled demolitions) http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-6708190071483512003&hl=en

TLGBH

Hi L.L., I often see on these talk pages people saying things along the line of "its all conspiricy crackpots who question the official story.. where are cerdible doubters?" This first link lists a large number of credible patriots who openly question 9/11. (the second link is where I obtained the first link from) And feel free to delete anything I have posted on your page here, if it's getting to cluttered or if you are getting any hassle for any of my comments.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/southpark_911_episode_on_conspiracy.htm

regards, TLGBH

---

I thought these links may interest you LoveLight ;

US Army Announces Readiness for Total Military Takeover of America http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/us_army_announces_readiness_takeover_usa.htm

Keith Olbermann criticizes Bush http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7150467909517615896&q=keith+olbermann

Doomsday For The Internet As We Know It? http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/internet_doomsday_for_internet.htm

Also I was wondering why the information from the http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ link isn't mentioned or listed on the 9/11 page.. the link has quotes from members of the Republican party, US Army Generals, Ex CIA employees and many others who all openly, publically and vehemently disagree with the official 9/11 story. If their opinions on the tragedy aren't relevant to the 9/11 page then I dont know what is.

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? &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Your link title

Please see this note. I'm taking a wikibreak, so any follow-up will be by another admin. Please don't reply on my talk page. The article talk page is the suitable place for any response. You might like to read through the recent talk on WP:BLP. Tyrenius 03:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add potentially defamatory material, even to talk pages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. [3] --Guinnog 18:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI

have you seen this discussion at the village pump?

RFM

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/September_11%2C_2001_Attacks#Involved_parties my mistake on this. if you could inform the other involved parties (and fix mongo's) with the proper page, that would be appreciaed. I'm getting off

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented 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 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Help us craft a real encylopedia article

HI Lovelight. I think the tactics the Feds are using are just to wear us down, frustrate us and get us to go away. It would be much more fruitful to spend some time editing the redraft article and return later when their guard may be down. And also when we've bult a strong concesnus among not Federal employees (I'm tole the wiki word for them is clowns) for the new version. --Cplot 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

an article of possible interest to you

The Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_timeline article is in serious need of attention. It presents numerous Conspiracy Theories regarding alleged ties between Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda as fact, when these theories have been refuted, rejected, denied and discounted by the U.S. Government, various U.S. Governmental hearings and commissions, and almost all the respected experts, many of whom are retired U.S. Intelligence. This is a clear case of misusing Wiki to advance fallacious and discredited Conspiracy Theories. Perhaps you could help there. Thanks in advance. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I can only imagine how are things there… in the trenches;)… I'll try to peek soon… brrr… Lovelight 16:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you give me your sources?

This involves the 9/11 article. I'd like some links to your sources for Jones, et al. so I can try to end the debate and solve the POV problems. You can either put them on September 11, 2001 attacks, under the section called WOT or on my talk page.--I need a vacation 18:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, but let us both relax for this weekend… I'm in heavy multitasking as it is, and I need a vacation as well… have a good one, weekend, that is…;) Lovelight 15:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence

I took a risky move and removed some of your comments from this page. I really didn't understand your argument, and I didn't understand why you included this letter, which made no sense. If this is a problem, I will immediatly restore those comments. The best evidence you have is the quotes from MONGO. Please let me know what you want me to do. i have not worked with you before, but I have seen your edits agains and again on the Sept 11 attack page, so I hope you are not offended. Travb (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I restored those edits: [4] when Nuclear messsaged me. I would suggest rewritting your section. Travb (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it’s a problem. From my perspective that letter is quite an embarrassment (for me before anyone;), and it wasn’t easy to stick it there. However, I believe that it serves its purpose and that reasoning and intentions are made clear… If there is more need of clarification I'll add some of the answers I've got to that particular unblock request… they are even more embarrassing, but this time for whole wiki… I'd say that there is no need to go there, and I'd say that there was no need for MONGO to go there too… Apart from that, its pleasure to meet you. Lovelight 15:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Love, as you wish, if you have any suggestions about my section, let me know. Is English a second language for you? Travb (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, wish I could share more with community, have some time to design upright user page… seemingly there are always some more concerning (or preposterous?;) – issues. Lovelight 11:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

& thx, your attention as well as intention are more than appreciated… Lovelight 12:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect use of a POV-tag.

In this edit you added a POV-tag to a talk article. POV-tags are for main articles only. So now you know, and won't do it again, right? --Regebro 15:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, and you won't misinterpret my intentions or disrupt the flow of discussions, it's not decent thing to do… so now that you know it you wont repeat it, right? Lovelight 15:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I can not promise to not make mistakes. I never misinterpret something on purpose, which I'm sure you know. And I have not disrupted the flow of the discussions in any way. You however, by copying part of discussions for absolutely no reason, so that they appear twice, and by still refusing to indent properly, are constantly disrupting the discussions. However, I have no hope of you stopping that, so I won't ask you to. --Regebro 16:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for record…

Addition is quite clear I believe, imo the section is more then appropriate, if you would prefer a different one say so but I believe it should be brief and to the point. Have my apologies for such inappropriate reply, but your accusations of me reposting and disturbing the flow of thought in the moment in which I tried to summarize it and restore it did throw me of the track there… there is also this issue of repeating, since you keep repeating how I should state the case while case was constantly swimming in this little flow of thought we have here;). We had a few disagreements yesterday… let's leave them there? Lovelight 12:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Lovelight 16:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Whitehouse using Wikipedia for Propoganda

Check the Village Pump [history for just one example. I gotta go. --GenericClownTaunt 19:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Lies, bloody lies and conspiracy theories

I would appreciate it if you deleted Cplots sockpuppets lies about me (and I assume everybody else mentioned) from your talk-page. I don't particularily approve of poeple lying about my person, as you maybe can understand. --Regebro 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I don’t know why this sort of information tends to land on my talk page, I'm surely not asking for it… I would probably remove this myself if there weren't so much tempering with that edit… About that other point, I'm still expecting your apology because of lies you're deliberately spreading about me… as for your reputation, well, that certainly isn’t my problem… Lovelight 01:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It lands there because Cplot puts it there through his various sock-puppets. I sympathize with your situation, but I would still like you to remove it. --Regebro 11:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

come to think of it… …if nothing else, editors/administrators mentioned above are a part of single interest group… but I'd guess that more experienced wikipedians know about that far more then I do… I'm trying to stay focused, but there are these "loony reports" of snakes on planes and socket puppies and clowns and MONGO's… it would all be rather amusing and funny, if it weren’t so sad… (& true).Lovelight 01:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well since I was forced to look at this after all, I see there is long history of wikinonsense… good going there…

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025583.html

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/024230.html

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025921.html

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054949.html

Or go here: http://spectrum-fairness.blog.co.uk/ (tag "Wikipedia")…

I have no idea what you are talking about or why this in any way wuold have anything to do with the issue. Please remove the lies about me from your talk page. I know nothing about the other editors, but I am not a party of any interest group whatsoever. Please remove the lies about me from the talk page. This is the last request I will do. --Regebro 11:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Will you remove those lies you spitted on me at the talk page, and restore my valid edit requests? Think about it… Lovelight 11:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not spitted anything at you, much less lies. --Regebro 14:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your insults.

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. References: [5], [6] --Regebro 11:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Simple sorry will do… Lovelight 11:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that will do is that you stop. I don't care if you say your sorry or not, just don't do it again, OK? --Regebro 11:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not doing a thing; you brought that on yourself... once again, your reputation is not my concern… Lovelight 12:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I take this as a refusal to stop. I'm sorry to hear that. --Regebro 14:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Muchacho, one more time, I'm not doing anything to you, while you go as far as calling me "Deaf dumb and blind basketcase"… and/or conspiracy theorist… and/or POV pusher… I've never proposed single change that could (not even remotely) be related to such term… isn't there some sort of protection from this sort of abuse? Lovelight 14:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I have done of the above is called you a conspiracy pusher, as you are one of the people who claim the article is POV for not including more conspiracy stuff. I already said that I was sorry if you didn't like that wording. I have never called you any of the other stuff you accuse me of calling you. There, I now hope this misunderstanding is cleared up. --Regebro 15:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

note

If outside parties are interested in...what was that all about… they may check appropriate history [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], keep in mind that I'll leave Reg to have a final word here & there… Lovelight 16:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please stop these personal attacks. They have become disruptive, and if you continue it will be necessary to temporarily block you from editing. If you have a problem with another user, take it to dispute resolution. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, you could have just ask me to cool of… this is second time you folks are treating with the block, while I clearly haven't done anything to deserve one, if I cannot answer to silly allegations on my talk page… just look at this mess... Lovelight 15:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have temporarily blocked you for disruptive personal attacks. Please do not promote or post links to that material again. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You have my slight bow and applause… Lovelight 18:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Escapade & ArbCom

I am not sure what you mean by "I'm honestly surprised by your escapade."? I thought we were on good terms and the black helicopters comment was not directed at you since you were not the one who posted the message I removed. I am not sure why you are taking such offense to anything. What is exactly wrong, or what did I do to offend you? My apologies whatever it may have been, unless its that I removed the sockpuppets attacks against me and their accusations. --NuclearZer0 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course that we are on good terms… it occurred to me that allegations about committee might be unfounded and that I should perhaps consider the whole process far more seriously, that’s all. As for your point, you've just noticed yourself how your comment might be misinterpreted… you know how I prefer when things are clear, and if that case has any due weight, I would try to avoid any misleading sentences. Of course that doesn’t mean that I think you used such flow deliberately… Apart from that, you did get me a block there, even if that wasn’t your intention;)… Well, I honestly hold no grudge with you, if you reconsider you're wording, I'll reconsider my. Lovelight 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I was being playfully sarcastic, as I thought you were when you posted the "Thank you" message on my talk page. My apologies if it was taken out of context, I didnt intend for you to get blocked, while I was annoyed because I didn't know what your issue was with me, I didnt think it was have deserved a block in retrospect. --NuclearZer0 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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: 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

That link

You may want to leave PTR's version up. It pretty detailed and is a good middle ground, it keeps the site and the timeline and restricts it to that day to satisfy the complaints about it. If people want to surf around the rest of the stie they can do so on their own. Just some advice. --NuclearZer0 15:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You would go against your own arguments? Why? We already have "minute by minute timeline"… Lovelight 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

re: ArbCom Questions for Paul August

Hi Lovelight. I've answered your questions. Thanks for asking. Paul August ☎ 22:33, 10 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" 09:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

re: about hoaxes, conspiracies & paranoid times…

No problem, apology certainly accepted. :) I will admit that after the time I took in making my lost and found, that the comment seemed critical of it. I was honestly thinking of you when I made it. The reason I made that area, is so the footnotes would be visible, to help keep them and improve what is lost before a place could be found for it. In retrospect, I should have made a section in the talk page explaining my actions. Have you taken a look at the Waxman letter I referred to? That letter is critical of the report for omitting investigations into prior warnings, which would be appropriate for the article. The link I gave you makes the reliability of sources unquestionable, as it's on Rep. Waxman's .gov site. I haven't had much time for it, I've been spending most of my time defending Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proven conspiracies (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information Sharing Customer Outreach (ISCO) from deletion. The second link I mentioned is part of our govt's new infrastructure for sharing information between departments in the "war on terror" (I'm assuming your American, please correct me if otherwise). You know it's a funny thing, but a couple of hours after I made my vote for keep here yesterday, the article in question started undergoing major edits, mainly by two of the users who voted delete. To me this seems to indicate that the article is more worthy of editing rather than deletion, else they wouldn't waste time with it. Please, when you have time, go take a look at what is going on over there and who is behind what. It's quite revealing and informative. I know I'm being a little vague here, but you will know what I'm talking about after you take a good look. Anyway, thanks for talking to me, it made me feel better today. :)

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. [12] . Thanks. Abe Froman 18:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Citation

You left a mildly mysterious message at my talk page. What do you mean by your message? Did I not cite something? I'm quite confused. I would appreciate it if you would explain further. Thanks! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

it may be helpful

Indeed it may, but it sounds regrettably patronising. Nothing was ever fixed about that template. Not its content and not its name. There is a section on its talk page to do with renaming it. You obviously have a strong opinion, and it would be useful, surely, to handle that there? Fiddle Faddle 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think wikipedia can be the most exciting and the most dispiriting virtual place. I hope you understand a couple of things about me and my edits here. The first is that I care only about the articles, not about the content. I hope that makes sense. The second is that I care about consensus, even if it goes against my own views, and, regrettably, even when I view it as illogical, even stupid. With regard to the various conspiracy theories and theory mongers regarding the WTC incident, I see the entire thing as WP:BALLS but believe passionately that a good article is abso;utely required that does not reflect my persoanl feelings Fiddle Faddle 22:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So you do care about the contest after all. You see, you keep refuting yourself… talking one way, acting another. Lovelight 10:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not snipe. If you want to be constructuve, then please be constructive. But I am wholly uninterested in personal comments Fiddle Faddle 10:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the note. In less than a month I have become fascinated with Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community.-JLSWiki 16:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism

No good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is vandalism. Please don't try to turn a normal disagreement into good versus evil. I think I mentioned this before, and thought you had agreed with me about it. Calling people's edits 'vandalism' in the edit summary is unnecessarily inflammatory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use the edit summary to editorialize. [13] Injecting politics is not going to make calm discussion any easier. Just narrowly describe your edit. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism accusations

Please do not accuse other editors of vandalism when referring to edits that stem from content disputes. [14] I'm sure you're aware of this but maybe another look at WP:CIVIL might come in handy. Good faith edits are never vandalism, ever. RxS 16:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you join related discussion and stop war editing about the disputed template. Lovelight 16:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rolling back someone's (inaccurate) accusation of vandalism is hardly edit warring. I would suggest however, that you take your own advice and stop all the reverting I see you doing and wait for the discussion to come to a conclusion one way or another. Editing is a lot more fun that way. RxS 16:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wish I could have such fun, but I'd had to be admin to revert often and without any explanation:(… as I've inaccurately pointed out:). Lovelight 17:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to drag this out but if you're implying I used my admin tools in rolling back these edits you are indeed inaccurate. RxS 17:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It was in no way related to your edits, I'm not sure why you felt that way. Lovelight 17:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question

I saw that you removed 911ct from [15] [16] several articles (Steven E. Jones and David Ray Griffin) for example, but added it to September 11, 2001 attacks [17]. Why does it not belong on articles about people working in the CT field, but does belong on an article that has nothign to do with CT? Seems strange....thanks. RxS 17:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you've followed discussion, you may have noticed that one of my first point(s) was that template should be applicable to the main 911 article. If we decide to stick it there, I'll shift my perspective. Lovelight 17:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My question was why (you think) 911ct belongs on a page that hardly mentions the theorys contained on the template and doesn't belong on pages that actively discusses them? RxS 23:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, I don't feel in such way at all, quite contrary. If you are wondering about those reversions, they were done in somewhat frantic state of mind. You see, I've kindly pointed that we are in the middle of the edit war and that we should restrain ourselves until we reach some sort of consensus. I've mentioned this on talk page(s) too, basically asking why the urge, why we cannot put the template on hold until disputes are resolved? However, editors involved felt the need to continue with… without addressing any of the points in discussion and that did throw me of the track, and I've started to act, well, a bit silly, I guess. Hope this explains my actions, and to be clear on things, of course, template should be placed wherever related/applicable. Lovelight 23:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm

Please don't do this [18]. Especially please do not start calling people clowns. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it was obvious violation, conveniently someone wrote a popular song about it, so it wasn't really name calling, it was pure sarcasm. Or should I just sit and watch how some folks are bending rules as they see fit? Lovelight 13:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand, just a caution. The whole 'clowns' thing has kind of been run into the ground lately. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, you know that I was reluctant to recognize such acrobatics in the first place. Lovelight 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to World Trade Center

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on World Trade Center. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. -- Upholder 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is considered bad form to remove warnings from your user page. Additionally, Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as you have on World Trade Center as it is also against policy. -- Upholder 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• You have removed several user warning templates from your user or user talk page. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they were placed here because other editors have noticed an issue with your behaviour that may require improvement. They are a method of communication and user talk pages stand as a record of communication with you. If you do not believe the warning was valid or have a question about improving your behaviour you can respond here or visit the help desk. If your talk page is becoming long, you can archive it in accordance with the guidelines laid out here How to archive a talk page. Thank you.. -- Upholder 21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, no archives and no omissions, I understand and appreciate the tickets, but I don't agree with your assertions or unnecessary comments. Instead of drawing illustrations on my talk page (the one that is my, to behold and to do whatever I like with it? Or?) someone could address such actions as this one? You know I was once blocked because I've been insulted, while the offending editor got nothing but a friendly note. People are leaving because of such administration. Thanks. Lovelight 22:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • …its always the same people (and I'm not talking about Upholder here), on all 911 related articles, all the same people, enforcing their pov's… and where are the others? They are behind the lock, ridiculed as vandals, and trolls and all that… jazz. Lovelight 22:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

they'll hunt you like a pack of wargs

I love that saying:

"they'll hunt you like a pack of wargs"[19]

I have seen you around, you are a "9/11 conspiracy theorist" in unfriendly circles, a "seeker of truth" in friendly circles, aren't you?

If you actually are a "9/11 conspiracy theorist", I don't agree with your beliefs at all.

But you probably have seen me around attempting to defend your ability to express your views on certain pages, particuarly in AfDs. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

? I'm wikinoob basically, and I'm honestly not aware of any such circles (learning though), so if you allow I'll stay right where I am, and that is out of any circle, so to say. imo Nuke is doing the same thing, I've noticed that you (among others) are questioning this? But I don't know what's exactly in his (in wiki) past (and I certainly won't dig for whatever it is)… Anyway, it appears you slightly misinterpreted that massage you are reflecting on. It was just addendum to similar occasion which occurred few weeks ago, when Nuke was (as he is today) "literary" surrounded by the "pack of wargs". Both of these messages were left on his talk page as sign of support in difficult moments… as a matter of fact, if there wouldn’t be your questioning and Machiavellian remarks I'd probably be much "bolder" in support of such well-rounded editor. Its not healthy to apply doublethink on everything, it leads to unnecessary paranoia… have you noticed my note to the Morton yesterday, do you honestly think that it was anything else but a sheer sarcasm? You could have learned that if you were following my contributions… I'd probably communicate much more with different editors, but there is this strange climate, things are not as they appear, so I'm a bit careful, while I learn a bit more of this strange environment. Come to think of it, let me share another thought, look at my user page, it could be that a lot of people are focusing on word vengeance, thus missing the fact that person is masked. No gender, no race, no allegiance and no nation dear Travb, just ideas, and ideas are bulletproof:). Lovelight 15:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: 911ct invitation. Thanks but I will pass :( I really don't like to get into those realy high conflict pages. I don't think there was an demolition, and think the people who do are a little kooky, but I respect their views and think they should be able to post those views using sources. That seperates me from the wargs I guess. Nuclear has been very facinating to watch. Ask him about his evolution.

Of course your comments were sarcasm. Fair is the same way, so is Morton and Seabhcan.

I'd probably communicate much more with different editors, but there is this strange climate, things are not as they appear

yep, everyone is politically correct here, or they are punished, sometimes severly.

So if you ever step in shit, just warning: you can't actually say "I stepped in shit". Travb (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, have your own perspectives, just … Lovelight 02:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Missle Citation

There is a request for citation of Donald Rumsfeld stating a missle hit the Pentagon. The citation is [20] that is from the Defense Departments website. It should be included with a follow up sentence specifying something like "though some believe it was a misunderstanding of words, though that will need a citation as well. In the 9/11 article that is =) --NuclearZer0 11:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Myth of the Corporate Media

Hi. Saw your commments over at the 911ct template talk page, and read the link you provided. I think I'm beginning to understand the Truth Movement, and how it is that you arrive at the conclusions that you do, and I think it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the American media. If the link you provided is representative of the TM, and based upon my review of your websites, I think it is, then the problem is this notion of a controlled media -- whether controlled by some unnamed corporate behemoth, or the US Government. While certainly there are Government-led PR actions, and efforts by corporate entities to control the slant and flow of stories, this notion is taken too far when you interpolate from those actions that the entire media is "controlled." Nothing could be further from the truth. We live in a media culture where competition is keen, and the desire to out-do one another predominates. Every reporter is trying to out-do the other reporters, and the one that is able to come up with a unique story or reveal hidden truths is rewarded, not derided. That's what Pulitzers are for -- the guy who "got" the "story", not for withering panderers. A unique and compelling story is the golden ticket in journalism, especially one that reveals the corruption and hypocrisy of our own government. So rather than treating the mainstream media as your "corporate media" enemy, you should embrace them and feed them your best TM facts -- if there's a real story there, it will emerge, because it has some credibility and can stand on its own, without cheerleading from the 911TM cheer squad of Jones, Hoffman, etc. If no story emerges after an extended period of time, then don't blame the media, blame the absence of compelling facts. 5 years is a long time. None of the 911TM "facts" has caught fire. Is that because the facts aren't compelling, or because someone is trying to suppress the facts? Ask yourself: where is the evidence of suppression? Food for thought.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Those links (plural) were provided because of terminology, and terminology only, I don't care much about TM (unless you are referring to the TrackMania!?):P Not sure what to say about this "public enemy media"… However, if you ask good folks at BBC they might be willing to share some insights about suppression you have mentioned. Guess Lou Dobbs could do the same thing.., and whole bunch of other folks too… but it doesn’t really matter, since we are basically waiting for history to unfold, critical mass and all that. Hmmm, you did remind me of an excellent book, there is a quote there about this strange suppression you are pointing to, but its hardcopy, when I'll find time I'll look it up and drop it to your talk page. Just for fun of it... Of course, you could also read about life & work of George Orwell… but as I said, this is about terminology and the popular connotations of word conspiracy, nothing else there. Honestly. Lovelight 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Love Orwell (and Huxley for that matter). But 5 years, and no "EVIDENCE"? All smoke, mirrors, and Bigfoot tracks. If we can find out that there were no WMDs, we can find out that our government is culpable in 9/11. Never gonna happen my friend.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 02:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Huxley is cool, eating peyote and all that… but I love Sir Isaac Newton and Galileo Galilei.., or in other words, those buildings freefell and I'm afraid that there is no remedy for that. Lovelight 03:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds as if you really are a True Believer. Life is fascinating -- you find Faith in the strangest of places.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 19:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What's up Morton? Some sort of anxiety? & what exactly do you have in mind? Faith in science? Here brother, have a song. Lovelight 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

911CD

I wish I could tell you that you didn't waste your time but this was a common tactic as well. Now that you created yuor template as was reccomended to you. When you try to place it somewhere you will be told that its not as complete as the ct one and you should not put both on an article, that its a duplicate etc. Put it on the 9/11 conspiracy theory article where its best. And watch the reaction of the same people who told you to make it in the first place. --NuclearZer0 11:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved the template and added the events. Its now at template:911cd. I am preparing a political POV statement that I will be bringing to an RfC possibly this week. I will keep you updated on it. As for the template however, its just gonig to get removed by Tom Aude and the others on Mortons friends list. I think the best bet for me is to start a larger discussion on the suppression of "other viewpoint" for lack of better words. As for sources, you dont source a template, but you may want to look through the movies to make sure they so support Controlled Demolition, and not a different theory. --NuclearZer0 13:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD

I have nominated for deletion Template:911cd. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

No one will have to block you unless you violate the three-revert rule. And even if you do, I would not block you myself, but report you on the notice board. There's no need for it to come to that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You've been more than helpful (in your efforts to turn me into vandal); I'd suggest you file your report. Lovelight 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are determined to have a blaze of glory, you'll have to get someone else to light it. I don't doubt your good-faith; it's just an editing disagreement. Per [21], there is a javascript thing you can use if you need an enforced break. Why not just take a day or so editing something non-controversial that you enjoy? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Lovelight, please do not disrupt the 9/11 article to prove some kind of point, or for self-aggrandizement. This one is a real encyclopedia article, not some pop-culture triviality. Revert yourself and a block may still be avoided. Get consensus on the talk page for links you want to add. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Proving point? Self-aggrandizement? Real encyclopedic article!;) It's just a little contribution, well referenced, well sourced & well intended contribution. You simply cannot avoid everything, you cannot tuck everything away as if it doesn’t exist… Lovelight 03:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Got your wish Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Lovelight.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 03:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Lovelight 03:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you welcomed a 3RR block, you got it. --Golbez 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, that's a bummer. Lovelight 03:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Say, Golbez, when you find a minute… would you kindly explain that explanation? What exactly does the gaming of the system mean? For example and with regards to main 911 articles, would that be something like we (the deciders) choose to oppose any mention of anything (what we find) damaging to the official take of events? And we'll do it by any means necessary? Is it something like this? Is that a bit like with those templates we played with and which brought me over the (h)edge? How exactly can one person game the system? I'm honestly puzzled… Lovelight 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

He was referring to the fact that it is obvious that you were attempting to get yourself blocked. --Wildnox(talk) 20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Then he should have written that, not the puzzling "game of the system" explanation. I do feel better now, thank you. Lovelight 08:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

ZeroFaults/NuclearUmpf

Dear God, what is wrong with you people? Where are these hearings held? I'd like to have a word too. Please leave a notice about whereabouts of discussion with regards to this case, either here or at my talkpage. Thanks. Lovelight 20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no hearing, Zer0faults/Nuclearumpf was not on trial. I blocked him per, as I stated above, his explicit threat to disrupt the project through harassment. After blocking him, I posted a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indef_block_of_NuclearUmpf.2FZerofaults so there would be visibility. Again, please note that it isn't a trial or 'case', it's a straight forward block based on his own behavior. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't like it one bit, as far as I've seen, Nuclear was under wave after wave of unnecessary threats and had to sustain all sorts of incivilities, ridicule… pressure to be sure. If we are to work in the healthy environment there should be no double standards. Mongo cannot go on rampage without sanction, Arthur cannot have his little hegemony, Morton cannot go around insulting decent people. If we would all act like that we would be in a ZOO. Indefinite block's and waste of good editors who are forced into loosing temper? Not good. This needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed from the top of the pyramid. Sincerely disturbed. Lovelight 00:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the block, I encourage you to edit the link I provided to the discussion on AN/I. If you feel I have operated improperly by extending his block to indefinite, you can find redress in the same location or make use of our WP:RFC facilities. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism accusations

Please do not accuse editors (myself) in good standing of vandalising articles. Thanks. RxS 05:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not engage in unfounded and meaningless edit war, thanks. Lovelight 05:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that you're removing valid references, there is nothing even close to consensus for these changes. If you want to add material please do not remove valid content in the process, thanks. RxS 05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Same goes for you, so where are we… just leave it be, no pictures, no colors, just facts, if you please. Lovelight 05:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Same goes for me what??? You removed valid content and I fixed it, no matter how you want to spin it. RxS 05:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a valid content, and you remove it, ok. And I'm not sure why you feel that my note was intended at you, since it wasn’t. Lovelight 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my mistake but we're the only ones talking in this section so it was only natural that I assumed you were talking to me. The problem is, in the same edit that you added material, you also removed valid content and that's what I was fixing. It's really not my job to sort through your edits and fix them piecemeal. RxS 05:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I ask for your pardon and I'm sorry for misunderstanding, there was a # of editors there who are regularly reverting without being questioned or without providing arguments, to my knowledge you are not such editor. Peace. Lovelight 05:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You should watch the reverts, it looks like you're over your limit. I'm not going to block/report but maybe it's time to take a breath? You are editing outside of consensus, and removing valid content. And no matter how strongly you feel about it, an admin (not I) is going to come along and see your reverts tonight and at least consider a block....that helps no one. RxS 05:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, I've made some valid contributions to that article, and there is no reason whatsoever to remove those, if impartial administrator comes along he will see what's going on, if not, I'll be blocked, won't be the first time that double standards are exercised, and I don't care much about all that anyway. I'm certain you are aware that I'm extremely patient with all this, thanks for the warning and all that. Lovelight 05:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 1 week

You have been blocked for 1 week for a 3RR violation on Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. To answer your comments above, from my perspective, it doesn't matter why you performed the reverts since you were not removing what we would consider vandalism. We don't choose sides or say that some edits are "valid" over others. 5 reverts in a 4 hour period is 5 reverts. Period. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks! Lovelight 14:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I shortened the block to 72 hours (total). But please please discuss rather than revert. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

ok, thanks, I'm still blocked (72 +, that is)… but the thought counts too!:) Lovelight 12:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

culpability

about thugz & petty criminals Lovelight 09:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

9/11 at Politics.Wikia.Com

I thought you might be interested in the 9/11 Truth Movement page.

3RR

You should watch the reverts, it looks like you're over your limit. Mieciu K 03:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What? It's utterly different topic and has nothing to do with recent history, please be kind and remove this section after you read the replay. Thanks. Lovelight 03:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does appear that you have made 3 Reverts to September 11, 2001 attacks in the last 2 hours, which is recent history and is the same topic for all 3 reverts. We just want to make sure you don't dig yourself a hole you can't get out of for a week. Mec modifier ^{(talk/contribs)} 03:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)