User talk:Okiefromokla/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Okiefromokla. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Re:Tulsa Tallest Buildings list
Thank you very much for the barnstar! I am very sorry it took so long for me to thank you; I have been on a rather long wikibreak. And thank you as well for making some cleanup edits on the page! Cheers, Rai-me 20:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- No problem! Good job again. Okiefromokla questions? 23:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
expert belief
- expert belief is the focus of this article [ Talk:9/11 ]
Hi Okie; the article doesn't say it represents "expert belief", it suggests it is reporting undisputed truth.
- Can you point to sentences in the guidelines where it says we should follow majority expert belief?
- Why would we need experts or scientists to consider facts such as:
- Officials refusing to testify under oath?
- Officials giving conflicting testimony?
- Pools of molten metal being found after a fire which was not hot enough to melt steel, only weaken it?
When it comes to the collapse physics, it stands to reason to rely heavily on the opinion of engineers. (But then I would also like to mention the testimony of a Dutch demolition expert who claims that WTC7 must have been demolished, as apparent from the footage.) But for the entire subject: "9/11", what would be the appropriate scientific discipline? Physics? Psychology? Aerodynamics? Criminology? Arabists? Economics? Political science? Chemistry?
Scientists are only humans. American scientists would need a lot of guts to stand up and say something is wrong at this level. Foreign scientists are often involved in programmes which have ties to American interests; or they might not be interested. This produces an enormous amount of systemic bias and selection bias, and when you do not acknowledge that problem, you may be prown to circular reasoning.
I'm not complaining about RS, I'm trying to figure out why you believe we should follow their opinion - I'm satisfied to stick with the facts. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, first of all, it should be noted that Wikipedia doesn't strive for truth, just verifiability. Anyway, I will answer your points. 1: What is notable about officials refusing to testify under oath? In reality, there are many explanations for this and all are speculation, but a cover-up is only one of many possibilities (and many people would say it is not a likely one). So including this is really irrelevant unless to imply an original researched conclusion — otherwise, why report every day political haggling as if a significant event? Even if balanced out with Bush's explanation, it would be giving undue weight to an insignificant footnote. 2: I believe you are referring to the Norman Mineta testimony; I don't think there are any other high-profile conflicts of testimonies. I might not have a problem with this being in a more specific article, but my problem is that there have been so many testimonies about 9/11, so picking the only conflicting testimony out of all of the testimonies to place in this broad article is a questionable editing practice and, again, undue weight. 3: That's just the kind of uninformed claim based on conjecture that makes 9/11 conspiracy theory arguments so outright laughable and ludicrous. This kind of claim is something people get from reading some internet blog site or the testimony of a non-expert. Here is a reliable source from The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, and has been published in a scholarly reviewed journal: [1]. This expert source explains in deatil how and why the towers collapsed, and why it may have appeared like a controlled demolition (it specifically denounces your claim of molten steel). Please note that a demolition expert saying it looks like the towers were demolished based on the video he saw is hardly noteworthy.
- As for your claims of bias, forgive me, but it sounds ridiculously paranoid — most scientists in the world are keeping quite because they are either Americans or have ties to America? Please, be rational, or you will not garner much support for your arguments. Your comment leads me to believe that you are simply delusional or want very much to insert your POV into the article despite our policy (an example of tendentious editing). Please note that suspecting bias everywhere is a key component of tendentious editing. Americans, scientists especially, have no problem questioning something the government tells them (Michael Moore, not a scientist, but a good example of decrying the government). Free speech is in our constitution and it is a fundamental right to speak out against the government. It happens every day. And don't make any mistake: foreigners are even more likely to speak out against the American government since, well, it may be an understatement to say many of them dislike America. The fact that there are no reliable sources denouncing the official account of 9/11 is not because censorship, or fear, or bias, or anything else: It's because the expert consensus is what it is, no matter what country you live in. Okiefromokla questions? 03:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I forgot to answer your request to point where a policy or guideline says to "follow majority expert belief". Well, I never said "majority expert belief", but I did say, as you note, "expert belief is the focus of this article". Here is one quote from WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources, as appropriate." Another quote: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment." Common sense tells us that in a factual article, only that which is accepted as fact by experts should be included. That includes, per the guidelines, any majority or significant minority expert and scholarly consensus as shown by reliable sources. The "minority view" you want to be expressed in the article is not a significant minority among experts, just popular culture and a few famous people. The lack of reliable sources to back it up testifies to that. Okiefromokla questions? 04:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! just verifiability -- agreed. (And balance) // there are many explanations for this and all are speculation, but a cover-up is only one of many -- have you any RS discussing the problem and/or examining options? // So including this is really irrelevant unless to imply an original researched conclusion — otherwise, why report every day political haggling as if a significant event? -- I disagree, there is merit for informing our readers about facts, even when we are unable to tell them what those facts mean. It would be not unlike a scientist discovering a new disease and not reporting it as long as he has found no cure. // I don't think there are any other high-profile conflicts of testimonies -- I've listed all that I knew // picking the only conflicting testimony out of all of the testimonies to place in this broad article is a questionable editing practice -- that's a bit like Sherlock Holmes saying "you have an alibi for murder, and there is only one inconsistency in it, the rest matched up, so you are innocent." // (it specifically denounces your claim of molten steel) -- it claims that steel did not melt, and that the weakening sufficed for the collapse. However, molten metal was found. So that needs explaining. // keeping quiet -- that's not paranoia, that's how science works. When you bite the hand that feeds you, you get a hard time. See e.g. Arpad Pusztai. // suspecting bias everywhere is a key component of tendentious editing -- tell that to WP:systemic bias // "Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources, as appropriate." -- and // "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment." -- we're on our own then, we have to reach consensus together or remain discussing till the end of time. Thanks for quoting these, I had half forgotten them. // only that which is accepted as fact by experts -- what I wish to include are undisputed facts. The texts I wanted to insert are not views, but undisputed facts on which such views are founded.
Thanks again, I liked the discussion; just a pity we are so far apart. I do not have the feeling we are coming closer to agreement, but I have no idea on how to go about differently in trying to reach that. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! just verifiability -- agreed. (And balance) // there are many explanations for this and all are speculation, but a cover-up is only one of many -- have you any RS discussing the problem and/or examining options? // So including this is really irrelevant unless to imply an original researched conclusion — otherwise, why report every day political haggling as if a significant event? -- I disagree, there is merit for informing our readers about facts, even when we are unable to tell them what those facts mean. It would be not unlike a scientist discovering a new disease and not reporting it as long as he has found no cure. // I don't think there are any other high-profile conflicts of testimonies -- I've listed all that I knew // picking the only conflicting testimony out of all of the testimonies to place in this broad article is a questionable editing practice -- that's a bit like Sherlock Holmes saying "you have an alibi for murder, and there is only one inconsistency in it, the rest matched up, so you are innocent." // (it specifically denounces your claim of molten steel) -- it claims that steel did not melt, and that the weakening sufficed for the collapse. However, molten metal was found. So that needs explaining. // keeping quiet -- that's not paranoia, that's how science works. When you bite the hand that feeds you, you get a hard time. See e.g. Arpad Pusztai. // suspecting bias everywhere is a key component of tendentious editing -- tell that to WP:systemic bias // "Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources, as appropriate." -- and // "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment." -- we're on our own then, we have to reach consensus together or remain discussing till the end of time. Thanks for quoting these, I had half forgotten them. // only that which is accepted as fact by experts -- what I wish to include are undisputed facts. The texts I wanted to insert are not views, but undisputed facts on which such views are founded.
A RS is not needed to prove that a cover-up is one of many possible reasons for officials refusing to testify under oath. It's common sense: political figures refusing to testify happens all the time. Your personal conclusion is very wide speculation. Your statement: "there is merit for informing our readers about facts, even when we are unable to tell them what those facts mean" violates a key component of our encyclopedia: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't include all facts just because they are facts. They must be notable and relevant to the article, and they have not been established as such. // About the Mineta testimony, your analogy is simply wrong. You are assuming that your beliefs about 9/11 are true, and it shows. One conflicting testimony out of hundreds is simply irrelevant; people are fallible, they forget things, misspeak, etc. Mineta even said that he didn't know for sure what Cheney was referring to; Mineta was merely speculating that it could have been about the attacks. How is Mineta’s speculation important to this broad topic article about the attacks? // First of all, there can't be molten steel without steel melting first. Molten and melted are referring to the same thing; second of all, I have seen no reliable source saying there was molten steel, do you have any? Thirdly, I fail to see how molten steel being found at the site is relevant. Your interpretation of the discovery of molten steel is not enough to prove notability on Wikipedia. We must have reliable sources make such a conclusion, or it would violate WP:OR. Right now, we must assume that the melted steel is not important unless there is a scientific RS saying it is an abnormality and coming to a conclusion. // Once again, criticizing reliable sources has no place here and shows your tendentious editing mentality. If every reliable source in the world is biased, then Wikipedia must also be biased because of our fundamental policy that we don't strive for truth, just verifiability. Reliable sources are the only way to verify things. // "What I wish to include are undisputed facts" — yes, but they must also be relevant facts. If you want to take trivial facts like political figures not testifying, or molten steel being found, you must provide reliable sources to prove they are important and worth mentioning. Once again, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Okiefromokla questions? 21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will reply below, and you may want to reply in-between: /Xi
- WP:IINFO/News reports. not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own'. -- that is not at stake here. /Xi
- you wr: They must be notable and relevant to the article, and they have not been established as such. -- I do not believe that the guidelines require an external RS for determining relevance. Relevance to the article is an internal wikipedia decision. No outsider can determine what we should decide. This seems to be our main difference of opinion? /Xi
- Mineta is not speculating about the time he met Cheney, only on what orders he was discussing. /Xi
- Molten and melted are referring to the same thing; -- agree, but I was not saying it wasn't. /Xi
- Wayne provided 4 RS for the melting. /Xi
- we don't strive for truth, just verifiability -- agree, but we only do not strive for truth because we are incapable of determining it. The final purpose of an encyclopedia is that its knowledge is true and complete, even when that goal is unattainable it is at the sime time our purpose.
Do you know this one? Your opinions are The Truth, and thus are unquestionably correct. I insist that my view is not necessarily the truth. Neither is yours. And neither is the view of the RS. And that's why we should not omit facts systematically, the same way most RS are doing that. It is a recipe for disaster. It is unscientific. And yes, a lot of scientists are behaving unscientifically quite often. (And I too make errors against the ideal scientific method sometimes, I'm not saying I'm always better than others, here.) /Xi - If the facts are trivial -- is your only concern that the article is getting too long? I think you are concerned because the facts might gnaw at your truth. /Xi
- — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will reply below, and you may want to reply in-between: /Xi
sorry you feel this way
9/11 dispute
Hi, I have been out of commission the last few days and despite attempts to make sense of the mass of different discussions on the 9/11 talk page, I have little clue about what's going on or why the article has been fully protected. Could you possibly summarize things for me, or point me to the relevant dispute? I would appreciate it... Thanks. Okiefromokla questions? 04:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Remember what the dispute was about before? Take that, and produce a specific example of it — the Mineta testimony. Then through in some generic argument about the wording of CT section, and an attempt to insert two particular people's wording into there. --Haemo (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- At what point does this dispute run into WP:TE territory? It seems like Mineta has come up before, and the OR & SYN arguments haven't changed any... // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Frankly, I think it already has. However, unlike some of the other disputes which I have intervened in (like Sri Lanka) everyone here is generally pretty nice and well-behaved, and there's not a lot of edit warring, so I'm not really willing to go forward because I'm getting tired of repeating myself. --Haemo (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for summarizing a few days ago, Haemo. I also believe there is (and have formally warned a certain editor of) WP:TE. I'm a little reluctant to bring this to the admin's notice board, but maybe wikietiquette alerts? The problem is, the editor is editing tendentiously but doing it in a thoughtful and fairly good faith manner without showing signs other disruptions. It's a borderline situation, and I'm not sure there's anything to do. Okiefromokla questions? 01:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's already at ANI, to absolutely zero effect. --Haemo (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I was talking about this user. Okiefromokla questions? 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- About Xiutwel: I think I'm ready to take this to the next step. A good-faith editor would accept the repeated efforts of others inform of policy. Instead of accepting consensus and editing other articles, this user has spend 95% of his/her time over the last year repeating arguments for his/her POV incessantly at 9/11-related talk pages, even editing articles regardless of consensus on several occasions. This shows that his/her intent is clearly to include the POV, rather than the betterment of the encyclopedia. While he/she is restraining from full-fledged disruptive editing and stays cool in discussions, he/she has, for months, and despite informal and formal warnings, cluttered 9/11-related talk pages with excessively long and repeated proposals on a more-than daily basis. He/she shows the classic signs of WP:TE:
- Refusal to adhere to policy when it conflicts with his/her POV
- Criticism and dismissal of core policies
- Accusing other editors and all reliable sources of bias and suppressing information
- Constant attempts at original research and synthesis in light of the lack of reliable sources to back up the desired POV
- Placing undue weight with insignificant facts to push the POV
- Repeating policy-breaking arguments without rest for (at least) more than a year.
- Refusal to accept consensus
- About Xiutwel: I think I'm ready to take this to the next step. A good-faith editor would accept the repeated efforts of others inform of policy. Instead of accepting consensus and editing other articles, this user has spend 95% of his/her time over the last year repeating arguments for his/her POV incessantly at 9/11-related talk pages, even editing articles regardless of consensus on several occasions. This shows that his/her intent is clearly to include the POV, rather than the betterment of the encyclopedia. While he/she is restraining from full-fledged disruptive editing and stays cool in discussions, he/she has, for months, and despite informal and formal warnings, cluttered 9/11-related talk pages with excessively long and repeated proposals on a more-than daily basis. He/she shows the classic signs of WP:TE:
- Actually, I was talking about this user. Okiefromokla questions? 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's already at ANI, to absolutely zero effect. --Haemo (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for summarizing a few days ago, Haemo. I also believe there is (and have formally warned a certain editor of) WP:TE. I'm a little reluctant to bring this to the admin's notice board, but maybe wikietiquette alerts? The problem is, the editor is editing tendentiously but doing it in a thoughtful and fairly good faith manner without showing signs other disruptions. It's a borderline situation, and I'm not sure there's anything to do. Okiefromokla questions? 01:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Frankly, I think it already has. However, unlike some of the other disputes which I have intervened in (like Sri Lanka) everyone here is generally pretty nice and well-behaved, and there's not a lot of edit warring, so I'm not really willing to go forward because I'm getting tired of repeating myself. --Haemo (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- At what point does this dispute run into WP:TE territory? It seems like Mineta has come up before, and the OR & SYN arguments haven't changed any... // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Haemo, because of these reasons, would you support taking this to wikietiquette alerts or ANI? Okiefromokla questions? 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you're definitely free to do so, but I'm not sure if it will help. The last ANI thread about this got a gigantic "yawn" and no uninvolved responses. --Haemo (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Haemo, because of these reasons, would you support taking this to wikietiquette alerts or ANI? Okiefromokla questions? 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel this way, Okie. The discussion is not long by my doing alone. If you feel I should follow the guidelines, quote them. I am following all of them. I think there is no guideline that a fact would need not only be RS based for it's existence, but also for it's importance. The importance is to be assessed by the editors. Some call such assesment, erroneously, OR. I can understand how you feel, because you have been reading misrepresented guidelines for years, perhaps, but the real guidelines... please quote. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Read WP:TE. It's why you qualify as being disruptive. I have also quoted WP:FRINGE for you on the 9/11 talk page. Okiefromokla questions? 04:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for that ! Xi
- Have I ever asked you the following before?
Suppose a UFO landed on the lawn of the white house, and CNN and all the press covered it live. Then suppose after a week no RS ever mentioned it again. Would wikipedia have an article on the landing? Would we allowed to mention the landing in the UFO article? Or in the White House article? I'm curious how you feel in this example. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- We would be able to include it prominently on Wikipedia because the event would have been documented by reliable sources (CNN and all the press) even if they stopped talking about it. Whether or not the scientific community accepted it as an alien craft would be discussed by reliable sources as well, and we would present it accordingly. If the scientific community did not believe the craft was of extraterrestrial origin, we would still mention that some people believe it was, but not it would not be in the context of scientific fact, only a sociological movement. The main article about the event would conclude only what scientists have concluded as told in reliable sources. Okiefromokla questions? 20:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I am replying to a comment you just left for me in regards to what I posted on the Discussion page of the 9-11 article. I was merely stating that 9-11 was an inside job, there is literally a mountain of evidence to prove it beyond any doubt. I am curious as to why the page doesn't even mention this as a possibility at the very least. As of now the page fully supports the official propaganda and I thought Wikipedia was supposed to stick to the facks. Neurolanis (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I should be addressing this reply to your recent reply here or elsewhere, but I had intended my comment for the article. If you would like me to list off the evidence which proves it was an inside job I would be glad to do so, with credible sources of course. If this is satisfactory, would you like me to post it here or elsewhere? Neurolanis (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, me again. I just posted a sub-section on the 9-11 Conspiracy for consideration on the 9-11 Attacks page and after only five minutes it has a negative mark against it. I was wondering if you'd like to read it? Neurolanis (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Xiutwel
I agree it's become a problem, but I'm not sure where to go with it. Unless you have a concrete suggestion (topic ban, block, whatever), AN/I is pretty ineffective when it comes to general complaints (even when justified as it is in this case). Unless we have a specific course of action I'd suggest telling him there's an RFC in his immediate future if he doesn't start acting a little more reasonable. RFC's aren't the most effective thing in the world but it's a clearer way to show that there's a consensus that he's acting WP:TE. In it you can lay out what he needs to do to resolve the issues and so on. Also, it's a first step in dispute resolution that needs to be taken in case it goes that far. I don't think AN/I will help at this point... RxS (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd favor an RFC. But if you have a specific outcome in mind and think it'll get consensus at AN/I that would be a quicker way through to the goal. As far as sock/checkuser goes, I'm not super familiar with the threshold needed to get one done. It'd sure be interesting to have the participants in that page checkusered but that'd be fishing a bit. I cetainly support whatever you decide though. RxS (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
For some background. take a look at his first 50 edits [3] back in January-February 2006. Those were edits to the Oklahoma City bombing page, pushing Alex Jones conspiracy theories there. He was also on my talk page back then. I don't have patience to keep arguing with him after 2+ years, and devote so much time to the 9/11 talk page. I simply can't keep up with all his talk page posts, but glad that you and others are able to help handle it. With the "mediation" on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page likely to fail, I wouldn't be surprised to see this all eventually go to ArbCom. I think Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final_decision is somewhat of a precedent for this, which resulted in people banned from editing certain topics, as well as "principles". For now, I agree with RxS that an RFC might be a good step at this point. --Aude (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks...Okiefromokla, thoughts? I think this is accelerating toward ArbCom. My time is so unpredictable but I'd be willing to help however I can with an RFC...RxS (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I won't be able to spend much time editing either, starting today really, but I'll see if I can put up a Rfc soon. Okiefromokla questions? 18:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Draw up the Rfc and there will be plenty of those who have diffs. He seems to be very civil so that is a plus, so maybe if he sees that his termagant efforts to force CT into these articles is now more than tedious, he'll make some adjustments.--MONGO 09:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Okie, got your note. I will do what I can to collect some material as I get time. It seems like he's slowed up a bit I'll start to put something together, especially if he starts up again. Thanks for thinking about this. RxS (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear all, yes please get xiutwel blocked, I have not had sex for the last four weeks....: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png Just kidding.— Vanja МИР (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
9/11
I was wondering if you could please stop by here to offer some insight on the edit war consuming the 9/11 page. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Expression by Xiutwel and wife
I believe all of us are devoted to solving these issues, because it is no game we're playing here, with these articles. We're talking about an event that has taken the lives of many people and of an event that has led to the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, where violence continues to the present day. Sharing a common view and respecting each others differing views is essential in bringing more peace in the world. I need this article to be respectful to all views. I am needing respect for uniqueness of human beings and the views they hold dear.
- Would you be willing to repeat the needs that I was expressing just now? So I can see whether you have grasped my needs and that would give me the feeling we understand eachother a little better.
- And Okiefromokla, would you be willing to voice your own feelings, ideals, and drive to work on the 9/11 article? — Vanja МИР (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
request your input in a consensus survey re 9/11
Dear Okiefromokla,
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) 17:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oklahoma Portal Promotion
Hey just thought I would let you know the Oklahoma Portal was promoted March 14, 2008.--CPacker (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration
I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Criticism sections are unencyclopedic
five people have already posted that on the talk page. Do you need another five before you accept consensus on that? You need to re-title that section immediately at the very least. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
this is what I saw on that page:
"In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged"
dahoy. what did you see ? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- i suggest what WP suggests: merge into existing formatting (but you already knew that)
- not like that text will last much longer. That section is totally undue weight and full of BLP issues- I almost reported it but I figured I will just wait until I can edit the page myself. I am still waiting for my 4 days and the new account to synch up. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- In the long run it will not work to have a 2008 campaign section, AND a criticism of campaign section. those two need to be merged with criticism or controversy a subset of that. except we should not title it that because its against "guidlines". You should make a case for why it merits special status even though criticism of McCain or Clinton is NOT included in a separate section. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Signature
Hey thanks for signing my guest book but where is yours??? [WHY DID I GIVE YOU MY HEART?.] ♠ [TAY♥][SAy iT.] 15:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Happy First Day of Spring!
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Feel free
Thanks for the note, feel free to adjust the figures in my table on the evidence page. I'll make a note that I asked you to make the changes if you want. RxS (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Oversight
I've submitted an oversight request for the outing of Coz. So if it is accepted and your reversions of the outing disappear, that's why. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. Okiefromokla questions? 00:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It's amazing how much the context changes when one forgets to remove a word.[4] Thanks for the update. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Oklahoma Today
how is the paragraph about Oklahoma Today vandalism. It was cited and factual. It added to the information in a completely unbiased way. What's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrown84 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not work for Oklahoma Today, nor do I have any connection with them. It is not just some random magazine, it is the official magazine of the state of Oklahoma. It has a circulation in all 50 states. --jbrown84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrown84 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can Edit
Anyone can Edit is the core principle of wikipedia. If there is something you feel is inappropriate on my user page, please feel free to edit it in such a way as to make it appropriate. Thanks for your contributions. It's nice to make your acquaintance, and I look forward to working with you further. User:Pedant (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Portals
Will do, I plan on nominating Penn. pretty soon, but im still adding articles and finish a few things, but when its ready ill give you a heads up, Thanks --CPacker (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sate Capital Populations
Yeah, I had to think about it for a second too. I thought "well Boston must be bigger" so I was about to add Boston when I thought of a couple more, until I realized that a lot more were bigger. Don't worry about the mistake though, it's understandable. Soy Milk Jim (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your recent edit summary at 9/11
Eh, thanks, but I'm a lot less fired up than people think I am. I'm actually quite calm in real life. Anyway, I appreciate the advice, I just wanted to once take a stronger approach to the troll. --Tarage (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Clay Bennett article
What's up? I noticed that you have been involved in editing the Clayton Bennett article in the past, and I also noticed that you have had to deal with user:Coz 11 in the past. You can check out the article's talk page and my own talk page to see what's going on. If you would like to help bring some perspective to editing that article or to the discussions, it would be much appreciated. Chicken Wing (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your guestbook comment
Yeah, my username may appear weird. It's Japanese. Obento is a lunch box, and musubi are rice balls. :) – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Stern's support of Bennett's stance
I'm not sure Stern's support for Bennett's stance is necessary for the lead, could you move it down to the body of article and add a source for it? It's definitely "worthy" of inclusion there, IMHO, I'm just unsure of the necessity in the lead. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll do that. I thought the source was already in the body but I guess not. I'm finding it now. Okiefromokla questions? 17:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
History of football
You might want to read that ref again.
Gridiron football was the creation of elite American universities, a fact that has shaped its distinctive role in American culture and life. After several decades of informal, student-organized games that were tolerated by faculty as an alternative to more destructive rowdiness, the first intercollegiate football game was played on November 6, 1869, in New Brunswick, New Jersey, between in-state rivals Princeton and Rutgers according to rules adapted from those of the London Football Association. This soccer-style game became the dominant form as Columbia, Cornell, Yale, and a few other colleges in the Northeast took up the sport in the early 1870s, and in 1873 representatives from Princeton, Yale, and Rutgers met in New York City to found the Intercollegiate Football Association and to adopt a common code. Conspicuously missing was Harvard, the country's premier university, whose team insisted on playing the so-called “Boston Game,” a cross between soccer and rugby. In May 1874, in the second of two matches with McGill University of Montreal (the first was played by the rules of the Boston Game), Harvard's players were introduced to the rugby game and immediately preferred it to their own. The following year, for Harvard's first football contest with Yale, representatives of the two schools agreed on “concessionary rules” that were chiefly Harvard's. When spectators (including Princeton students) as well as Yale players saw the advantages of the rugby style, the stage was set for a meeting in 1876 of representatives from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia to form a new Intercollegiate Football Association based on rugby rules.
Football was introduced by McGill to Harvard who then played Yale, and so on. Before that they were playing soccer-style games. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Tulsa Photos
No problem, I was actually going to talk to you and see what you thought about me getting a better photo of Tulsa, one during the day to replace this photo---
- Its also cool that you cropped it, thanks for giving me credit on the new one. I also am going to take one of first Methodist; the current one isn’t that great. If it’s not raining and nice this weekend or next I can get some photos because college will be out. --CPacker (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hey just to let you know I uploaded a cropped version myself and requested both of the other photos be deleted get rid of the redundant copies.--CPacker (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ya Ill be sure to get one of city hall. If you think of anything else downtown that needs a new photo let me know before this weekend.--CPacker (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hey just to let you know I uploaded a cropped version myself and requested both of the other photos be deleted get rid of the redundant copies.--CPacker (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Oklahoma Article
Hey there was an edit by User:Nyttend that says tulsa extends into Osage and Rogers county, is that true? Im putting citation needed but it needs to be cited or removed. Let me know what you think, Thanks--CPacker (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I can try to get another photo, when I uploaded the other one I guess it wasent fair use, my bad, anyways I wanted to let you know that im 99% sure that Tulsa doesnt go into Wagoner county but Broken arrow does the county line is at 193 st.--CPacker (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well I guess I can't be right all the time.--CPacker (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at my Census Bureau map (linked on CPacker's talk page), I'd guess the anomaly is in the northeastern corner of the city. Between your development council map and the Census map, I can see that the municipal boundaries tend to be rather fractured (also as if there are tiny unincorporated areas between the municipalities; are OK cities not allowed to border each other?), but it looks as if Tulsa there goes a little across the line. As for including it: the standard practice nationwide is to say that if even a tiny portion of a municipality extends into a county, it should be listed. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well I guess I can't be right all the time.--CPacker (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I can try to get another photo, when I uploaded the other one I guess it wasent fair use, my bad, anyways I wanted to let you know that im 99% sure that Tulsa doesnt go into Wagoner county but Broken arrow does the county line is at 193 st.--CPacker (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Image
No problem, It looks like im going to go Friday if everything works out. So Ill see what I can do --CPacker (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hey I uploaded some new photos, I also changed some on the Tulsa page. Talk to me if you don't like any of them and we can work it all out. I also got one of the BOK Center but im not sure if you will like it, I will upload it later tonight and you can look at it on my userpage. Thanks --CPacker (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hey the page looks good, I think that the Indian Statue looks better the the Depot and it talks about it in the section and the Geograpy photo has all the real green trees which contributes to Tulsa being called the gateway of Green Country. I was also trying to decide which photo to be the main photo but Im still not sure if that photo still looks that great. If I get a chance to get a better one I will. Thanks --CPacker (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)