User talk:Pablothegreat85/Archive1

Chink AfD

The Chink article has been greatly expanded now. Please take a look and see if you are interested in reconsidering your vote for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed my vote. The article is much better. Nice work. Pablothegreat85 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh it wasn't me that did the expansion. I tried to find some more resources but I think my Google skills just aren't very good. We have User:Falsedef to thank for the expansion.[1] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lists

Explain to me why we have all these lists: Lists of topics and in the light of this, tell me why the article you nominated (List of books critical of Islam) does not qualify to be on wikipedia. --Matt57 13:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not nominate the article, I proposed deletion. For what it's worth, after further thoughts, I do believe I made a mistake with the proposal. Pablothegreat85 07:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok good. --Matt57 11:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Allegations versus just plain title

Please discuss major title chanages before making unilateral changes. You will only start a edit war in such circumstances. Subject matter is not allegations but within the subject matter we can talk about allegations. Thanks RaveenS 14:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Several people in the AfD had suggested the change, so I boldly moved it. Pablothegreat85 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

May 2007

Re: United Airlines Flight 93: Honest mistake. Sorry. Bulbous 18:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. I did not add the vandalism. Of course, if you would have taken the time to look at the diffs you would know that. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's cool. Pablo Talk | Contributions 19:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Other articles

Since you seem to have a keen sense of which articles should and shouldn't be in Wikipedia, I would appreciate your opinion on the articles here: {{NUS}}. --Elonka 09:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that template is full of articles that need to be deleted. What's with all of the red links? Are those articles that have already been deleted?

I would leave the National Union of Students of Australia alone. Even though the article is completely unreferenced, it is inherently notable as such a large organization.

The same cannot be said for the student unions at the individual universities. I noticed that you prodded a few of them, but were reverted, twice by User:Rebecca. In fact, in this edit and this edit she accused you of trolling after tagging the articles as non-notable and unreferenced (this was after you prodded it), which was ridiculous and unwarranted, and also an absurd assumption of bad faith. The only student union that strikes me as somewhat notable is the Melbourne union, but not quite enough to have its own article. What I would do with these is bring up the three that you prodded (Adelaide, Curtin, and Queensland) for a bundled AfD, just to test the waters to make sure that others agree that these articles are non-notable. If that works, then I would bundle the others that you think should be deleted, with the possible exception of the Melbourne one (bring it up for AfD separately).

I think that every article in the "Current Factions" sections should be deleted, especially the ones that you prodded. The only article that I think might be worth keeping is this one, but even that article is on very, very thin ice. If you choose to bring these articles up for AfD, perhaps you should bundle the ones you prodded (Grassroots Left and National Labor Students), and if it works, AfD the ones that you think should be deleted as well. The articles in the "Former Factions" should all probably be deleted as well.

What strikes me about every article in that template is that they badly violate one or more of Wikipedia's most important policies (including the National Union of Students of Australia article, which should be kept). Every one is guilty of having original research, and most of them are completely unreferenced. I must say that I feel much more strongly about the deletion of the student unions at each individual university. Those unions have almost no claim to notability. I don't see any problems getting any of those articles deleted (and for good reason). On the other hand, those national "current factions" will be a bit more difficult to get deleted (with the exception of the two articles you prodded and the Independents article). My gut tells me that editors will be much more reluctant to delete those articles because they might seem notable as national organizations (even if they aren't notable). With the exception of the two that you prodded and the Independents article, I probably wouldn't AfD them, but I think that, as you did with several of them, slapping them with unreferenced and/or notability tags is a good start to getting the articles improved. I think that the articles under "former factions" might be a little bit easier to delete, but the problem is, again, that they were national organizations and might seem notable to a lot of editors. Hope this helps! Pablo Talk | Contributions 10:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, and for the most part, I agree. However, for various reasons, it's probably best if I don't initiate any deletion proceedings in that topic right now. If you'd like to proceed though, I will do my best to support. --Elonka 10:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I might get around to AfD'ing them sometime, but if you decide to go that route in the future, please send me a message and I'll put in my two cents. Thanks! Pablo Talk | Contributions 10:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

For your consideration

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groups and individuals challenging the official account of 9/11 (2nd) -- have fun!  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 22:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Looks like this one is headed into the cruft abyss. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for notification

Next time something like this (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information Clearing House (second nomination)) comes up, please notify me -- I like to participate in conspiracy theory Afds, and of course it wouldn't be "disruptive" at all to notify me, as I'm asking for it. Thanks.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll make sure to do that next time. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible articles for deletion

I don't have any experience in nominating articles for deletion, but I saw you nominated 'conspiracy con' and I wonder if these articles are similarly unreferenced? I've added a bit to them, trying to make them more balanced, but perhaps they shouldn't be on wikipedia at all? What do you think? 11:11 (numerology), Alien spacecraft Nick mallory 06:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Alien spacecraft article should stay. Even though it was created in November '06 and is still an extremely short stub, the subject of alien spacecraft seems pretty notable to me. The fact that the 11:11 article was nominated for deletion five months ago and is still a horrible article (although your edits were big improvements) makes me think that it ought to be nominated again sometime in the near future. I must admit that I am not very familiar with the paranormal or the occult, so I wouldn't say that I'm the most informed on the subject of deleting these articles. I am, however, very familiar with conspiracy theories (especially related to 9/11, which was why I chose to nominate Conspiracy Con for deletion. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your help in keeping nonsense out of articles related to the events of 9/11/2001. MONGO 07:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's my first barnstar. Thanks! Pablo Talk | Contributions 15:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you continually revert the 911 truth movement article to condescending propaganda hole?

I have been very annoyed by your constant changing of the revisions I make to the 911 truth movement wiki page. Some other members of the public have complained about the articles perspective also. who do you think you are pablothegreat? obviously great i suppose but you will go down in history as being not so great. Because soon my friend the population will agree with me that the towers were brought down with explosives. And our group will no longer in your words be made up of in your words "left", "right", pacifists, paleo-conservatives, Greens, anarchists, and libertarians. But we will just say were made up of the general population. And you will be insultingly charachterized into a certain demographic like we have experienced because of people like you. Pablothegreat. My changes were not advertly biased. The changes were made to make the piece informative and more importantly, delivering our message from an neutral POV. I am sick to death of fighting you to make the article neutral. The truth will win in the end. rob_mcc@hotmail.com

I'm not going to take your complaint seriously until you get an account. Pablo Talk | Contributions 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

eh I think he went looking for renforcements. ho hum.Geni 15:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I think it's pretty funny. I'm glad I decided not to e-mail him, as I'm sure he would have posted my e-mail address on that website.Pablo Talk | Contributions 17:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits, such as the one you made to September 11, 2001 attacks, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed."

hey Pablo, I DIDN'T write something that was "unconstructive" or "unhelpful" the whole point of wikipedia was to share our thoughts about who we think did what, when why and how. so you found a graphic that looks official and you said welcome to me in the name of Wikipedia and you expect I'm going to roll over? well, I'm not. I'll keep posting whatever the f****** hell I want, and in all honesty if you don't like it, you can go to hell. If you don't like something that changes all the time then go buy a set of paper encyclo-f******-pedias. I'm not stupid. We're not stupid, and the kind of coercion that you're practicing is just poor. so that means that you suck at it. thank you, come again. X911oz 13:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell me how you really feel. Also, please just use the word "fuck" next time instead of typing a bunch of asterisks. Pablo Talk | Contributions 19:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing and David MacMichael

Hi Pablo, I agree with you that the new IP user 68.91.252.148 was crossing the bounds in a big way by canvassing for votes on the David MacMichael Afd and I told him so at User talk:68.91.252.148. It was also pretty sloppy canvassing since the user did not even see that I had already voted on the AfD before he contacted me on my talk page.

However I think your post here on Morton devonshire's talk page is also a form of canvassing, particularly since he then posts it to User:Morton devonshire/IlluminatiNoticeboard and thus passes it on to others who have a strong interest in deleting articles on members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (a group which is apparently mistakenly believed to be a conspiracy theory group, as I can't see why in the hell MacMichael would otherwise end up on the "Illuminati Noticeboard"--opposing the Iraq war and saying the intelligence was stretched or falsified certainly does not make one a conspiracy theorist). Can you explain to me the distinction between your action and those of user 68.91.252.148, other than the fact that he did not have access to a handy notice board which people with his point of view would check, thus eliminating the need to post on multiple talk pages as a way of votestacking?

I think if you are going to contact anyone about any AfD, it should not be only those who agree with you, but also anyone who had been involved with the article in the past. FYI I have no vested interest in the David MacMicheal article, though I thought it needed to go to AfD and removed the deletion template you had placed on it, and I only voted weak keep on the AfD.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Morton devonshire asked me to contact him for AfD's (scroll up for proof), which is perfectly fine per WP:CANVAS. The problem I had with the anon is that he or she has about ten edits and nearly all of them are either on the MacMichael AfD or to canvas for it. As for the noticeboard, people who disagree with him are free to look at it as well. Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and again I'm in full agreement with you about the anon IP editor, but I guess I'm just leery of the potential for votestacking inherent in user pages like the "IlluminatiNoticeboard." Obviously anyone can watchlist it or look at it as you say, but the point of it does seem to me to do a bit of an end-around on WP:CANVASS in such a manner as to not violate AfD guidelines (for the simple reason that most of the people who go there are going to be folks who agree with Morton, and it does clearly seem to be a way to get the word out about AfD's to anti-conspiracy theory folks, as had earlier pages which were similar).

That point aside though, my bigger concern is simply that David MacMichael (and for the most part Ray McGovern) is not a conspiracy theorist of any kind as far as I know, so I think it's very misleading to list him on the IlluminatiNoticeboard and it's what really raised my concern about the whole endeavor. I'm all for cleaning out conspiracy theory nonsense (and indeed all nonsense--there's so much of it at this place!) and it seems like a lot of useful work has been done with that on 9/11 related issues which in general I support. But with the McGovern and MacMichael AfD's I'm seeing a bit of mission creep that I find disturbing. Deleting these articles seems less about getting rid of CT nonsense than it does about getting rid of articles some folks don't care for because they think they violate WP:N. That's fine (though I obviously disagree) but if the real reason for an AfD is general lack of notability (along with, I think, an obvious undercurrent of disdain for the politics of the people in question that is a bit too POV for my taste) I don't think it's right to list it on a conspiracy theory AfD page. Hope that makes sense, and thanks for getting back to me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

MacMichael

Hi, please take a look at the changes I made to the David MacMichael page, as well as the 40 or so citations I added to the deletion talk page. There are several articles in reliable sources that are devoted to this guy, and he played a key role in the World Court in the 1980s. I won't bug you about it, but you may wish to reconsider your vote. Thanks! csloat 07:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just withdrew my nomination. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WPARanormal

Hello I am new to wikipedia so I appologize once again if this is the wrong place for this comment.

Please take a moment to take a look at the media/book references I have added to the WPARanormal Talk Page I think this brief list should be a good start to establishing notability.Wantmy442 02:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You're fine, this is what talk pages are for. I'll respond on the article's talk page. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved from my user page

Hey Pablo, Rex Tomb said what he said and there's no way you can delete it from human history. There is no hard evidence linking bin Laden to 9/11, and he initially abhorred the attack. Maybe you can use wikipedia to find him and ask him yourself.--Bennyxbo 23:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Next time, try using reliable sources and then actually read the sources that are reliable. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

9/11 is not mentioned on bin Laden's bio on the FBI's FBI Most Wanted Terrorists page, and he said to wired news that "There's going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks [9/11] is actually charged," Therefore, bin Laden has not been charged.

That's what the source says, but you keep adding original research to the article. Your assertions are not backed up by the sources you provide. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the teamliberty quote, i do not fail to back up my assertions with reliable sources. I will make a compromise and remove any information origination from teamliberty ( however, his quote to them its 100% in step with all his other quotes, next time I will get him on a recording). Good day.--Bennyxbo 23:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC) I'm off to the cottage, please don't be bias towards information that makes you uncomfortable. I applaud your efforts as far as removing "theory" from the wikipedia, in fact it aids my cause. I would appreciate it if Wikipedia would cease to propagate WOT propaganda & half-truths --Bennyxbo 23:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My only biases are against bogus assertions. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, talking about your "cause" in that way shows that you are blatantly violating WP:SOAP. I suggest you stop inserting propaganda into articles. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My cause is to end all B.S., and spread facts & truth , probably yours is the same. The War On Terror is the biggest load of B.S. the world has ever seen, and the amount of bogus propaganda we are subjected to is unbearable.--Bennyxbo 16:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We aren't talking about the War on Terror, we're talking about 9/11. Pablo Talk | Contributions 17:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

9/11 initiated the U.S.'s involvement in the "War On Terror", therefore if it is proven to be a fraud ( or partial fraud ), then a world based on truth, honour, and peace can be restored.

I'm not following your argument, mostly because it is incoherent. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Franklin Coverup Hoax

None of the links used in the Franklin Hoax article verify what the article states. I have 3 sources on the discussion page that refute what the article states. The first section of the article is poorly researched and inaccurate. Why can this not be addressed? Not trying to cause a problem, but I don't like something that is really just jibberish being presented as verified when it has obviously not been vetted. Anyone with adequate reading skills can see the article is a complete misunderstanding of the Washington Times article.Mdana 04:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the sources. Even if they don't verify what the article states, that doesn't mean you get to vandalize the page. Vandalizing the page only hurts your cause. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. If this were the first time I used wikipedia, and I read this article, I would not return. When I first started using this source, there were many times that an article/entry would be disputed. I think it is better to see that concerns are being addressed than to have obviously inaccurate or biased information. That hurts the cause more than anything. Most people I know think Wikipedia is a joke. I was just trying to make it a better source, because I believe it can be a valuable tool for everyone. Wiki states you can edit, then you state it is vandalism. Seems like a contradiction. Is there a page that lists what is and isn't considered vandalism? Mdana 05:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Read WP:VANDALISM. If after reading this you still don't understand why your edits are considered vandalism, I can explain what made your edits vandalism. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

From your link-"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Please explain. Mdana 05:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits really don't appear to be in good faith. I don't see an effort to improve the article. What you put in the article should be in the talk page. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the links? How can you state the Franklin Hoax has any connection to the Washington Times article? How is Spence involved in the Franklin affair? There is no evidence of any of the statements made in the first section. Mdana 05:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me take another look at the article, and then I'll get back to you. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been given adequate time to respond. For two months you have been debating to delete this article, yet no contributor has ever realized the inaccuracy of the first section. This article has been wrong for almost two years. However, in two minutes you can mind read and tell that my correction of the inaccurate statements is vandalism. I dont' see how you are protecting wikipedia's name by protecting bogus information and giving wiki's stamp of approval. Reading the contributions page and seeing numerous contributors debate so many aspects of the article and not one noticing that the Franklin affair has nothing to do with the Washington Times article or Craig Spence shows wiki to be run by people more interested in protecting some virtual turf, than interested in the truth.Mdana 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If those were good faith edits, then maybe Wikipedia isn't your thing. If you want people to read your inane ramblings, start a blog. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

SPA tag

I am requesting you cease tagging my posts with the SPA tag. My posts are on numerous topics from Islamic groups, 9/11, cracking/warez and this topic of state terrorism. I will take continued labeling as harassment as it is unnecessary. --SixOfDiamonds 21:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Take it as you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that you have few edits in any other topic, and are therefore a single purpose editor. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your hostility and rudeness are noted. I hope you only treat those who oppose your views in such a manner. Seems it will not matter anyway as the end result of the AfD will be keep --SixOfDiamonds 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been neither hostile nor rude. I am just pointing out that you fit the definition of a single purpose user. Pablo Talk | Contributions 16:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow "grow up" is your summary. Quite a childish behavior being demonstrated. I hope you find a less provocative way in dealing with people, you sir are not as amusing as Morton, you will have to learn some manners. --SixOfDiamonds 18:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I probably shouldn't have included that as my edit summary, but you were pissing me off with your unfounded accusations of harassment, hostility, and rudeness. Who said I was trying to be amusing? I think you might have the wrong idea as to who I am. As a side note, thanks for fixing my typo at Banfield Expressway. I really should stop neglecting that article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 19:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it neglect, just a simple typo on a nice article, you may want to add a picture. --SixOfDiamonds 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

From Tatonka79

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please limit your comments to the discussion and not the commentors. That is uncivil and against Wikipedia policy. Tatonka79 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never made any sort of personal attack against you. Attacking your nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Oregon does not equate to attacking you. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For my future knowledge

How exactly do you close a nomination for deletion (in relation to this page Skip Heller -- Gudeldar 07:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There's probably an easier way to do this, but I just picked an old AfD and copy and pasted from it. Pablo Talk | Contributions 15:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Polite notice

Please refrain from making unfounded allegations against me in the future. Mujinga 02:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making any allegations against you. I don't think that you read that very carefully. Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello? For some reason you wrote ... "Abureem=Mujinga=Striver". This is not true. I've been here 1.5 years, I've made nearly 2000 edits. I'm me. I have no other accounts. Stop harrassing me. Happy editing. Mujinga 02:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment? This is the first time we've ever encountered one another. You approached me. I wrote "Abureem=Mujinga=Striver?" Note the question mark. I have not accused you of anything. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning?

Read the guys comments and contributions [2]. He is an obvious troll who hasn't gotten blocked because it would be more trouble than its worth. 128.227.43.42 03:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:TALK says that troll comments not pertaining to helping the page can be deleted so please remove your warning. 128.227.43.42 03:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never encountered this particular user, so I'm not sure whether or not he/she is a troll. I'm going to go ahead and assume that the editor in question is not a troll. Regardless of alleged past trolling, the comment I restored was not an example of trolling and you should not have deleted that comment. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing is written sarcastically and he obviously has no respect for how Wikipedia works. The post is bait for anyone to try to go against him so that he can continue his whole Wikipedia = Olbermann propoganda. 128.227.43.42 03:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I briefly skimmed his contributions and it doesn't appear that he's acting in bad faith. I'd just let it go. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OMG please read what he writes to other IPs[3]. Geesh. 128.227.43.42 03:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he/she probably could be a bit nicer towards IPs, but once again I suggest you let it go. If you want to complain about Haizum to someone who can actually do something (read: not me) then I suggest you go to WP:ANI. I still maintain that Haizum's comment was legitimate and that you shouldn't have removed it. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you go to ANI, you're going to get blocked for 3RR'ing all over the place. I have plenty of constructive edits and comments, but I don't take kindly to rogue IP editors that don't think the rules apply to them. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you two please take this conflict elsewhere? Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry you were even bothered with it. You'd think simply reading the rules would be enough. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please participate in a respectful and civil way, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. Divestment 01:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that I'm taking this "warning" seriously? Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Same old pattern, accusing/warning established editors of pretend violations. He should stay blocked.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 04:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am thoroughly amused that he followed through on his threat to report me to WP:ANI--which led to him being indefinitely blocked. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious, aint it. Travb (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist the Movie

May I just have a lowdown on what the heck is going on? And should I request protection on this? -WarthogDemon 04:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The same IP keeps removing stuff from it. He's been reported to WP:AIV, so I wouldn't worry about requesting protection unless other IPs join in. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What IS this movie anyway? I've seen it peppered in the Recent Changes for many days now. o.O -WarthogDemon 04:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. The film fails WP:NOTFILM quite obviously, but there was an influx of IPs and SPAs that kept cluttering up the AfD. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith and calm the heck down

I'm tired of people like you getting in my face typing messages on talk pages as though you were yelling in my face. If you looked at my edit history yo u would see that I HAVE NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER to push a POV and I am extremely offended by your comment.

I am curious as to why you have such a short fuse. What about my OPINION sets you off? — Selmo ^(talk) 22:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

First, please don't type in all caps (even if it's just a tiny bit of your message); it's rude. Second, I'm not sure why you think I have a short fuse. Third, you accused me of trying to own the article, so don't lecture me on WP:AGF. Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you would think after many people have been giving you a hard time someone would be angry. You blew a short fuse since you decided to "fight me until I stop editing". That, by definition is intimidation. Intimidation comes from anger. I accused you of owning the article because you came onto me on the talk page of the article as though you were the boss. — Selmo ^(talk) 22:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not at all what I said, straw man. Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You have anything better to do than insult people? — Selmo ^(talk) 22:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Straw man" is an attack on your arguments and not you. Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't pretended to reject the 9/11 truth movement. — Selmo ^(talk) 22:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what a straw man argument would look like in this case. — Selmo ^(talk) 00:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The straw man argument was this: "you decided to `fight me until I stop editing'." Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. [4] — Selmo ^(talk) 05:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want you to stop editing, I want you to stop POV-pushing. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny I wasn't. I simply objected to the source used and you come off and call me a POV Pusher, a term that is normally used to discredit anyone's views. If I said The Olympics will be hosted in Tokyo in 2028[ref]Geocities{/ref], someone removes, it, and I said "you no good POV Pusher! Your attempts to DELIBRITLY violate WP:NPOV will be defeated!" I would come off as unreasonble wouldn't I? — Selmo ^(talk) 06:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Here's another one "John Smith from NYTimes says Paris Hilton is a spoiled "brat".[ref]nytimes - editorial[/ref]. Oops! We have person who breaches policy on purpose. Now, he oughta be blocked, right? Now since you still say my intention is to push a POV despite my previous comment, you are essentially calling me a liar. I feel this is a reasonable conclusion. — Selmo ^(talk) 06:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I called you a POV-pusher for wanting to add Prison Planet as a source, not for removing that other source. You're becoming incoherent, and I think it would be best if you ceased engaging me here. Pablo Talk | Contributions 15:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Steven Jones

Hi Pablo!

You undid my addition to Steven Jones page stating that David Griffin's book was peer reviewed.

The book in question is David Griffin's "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out". When asked by Steven Jones whether the essays collected in the book, including his, were peer reviewed, this was David Griffin's response (email addresses have been removed to protect privacy):

On 8/1/07, David Griffin wrote: Steven,

Yes, all the essays were peer-reviewed. Most of the contributors were, in fact, asked to revise their essays on the basis of the reviews. And not all submissions were accepted.

Cordially,

David

On 7/31/07 9:44 PM, "Steven Jones" wrote:

Hello, David and Peter --

About the book holding my article, i.e., 9/11 and American Empire, Intellectuals Speak Out -- were all the essays in this particular book peer-reviewed? If so, does the book say so somewhere?

This seems to be important -- someone is asking me, and we find the peer-review issue arising again.

Thanks, Steven J

Since the authors of the book describe a peer review process and indicate that on the basis of this process most of the manuscripts had to be revised (typical for any peer reviewed publication) or ommitted, what is your basis for claiming that the author's are lying?

You may peronsally disagree with the contents of these essays, but please do not remove my accurate inclusion describing this book as peer-reviewed unless you can provide me convincing evidence that David Griffin included Steven Jones' essay (and the other essays in the book) without asking anyone to review them. Please call or contact me if you would like to discuss this further.

Thank you!

Respectfully,

Mark Patterson 434-326-0180 Mark@MarkCentury.com

Where did you get these e-mails? Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 03:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

RFA for Haemo

When you create Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Haemo, please copy the text of User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/Nomination for Haemo as my nomination. (Link to the original page in the edit summary so that people know it's from me.) Thank you. Shalom ^Hello 12:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WPOR Collaboration of the Week

Greetings WPOR member, we are starting a weekly collaboration project where we will announce two articles that are currently stubs that we hope to work together to improve. No pressure to help, but if you would like to, just stop by one of the articles and see if you can find information to expand the article with, copy edit what is there, help with formatting, or add some images. This week’s articles are: Alis volat propriis and Fusitriton oregonensis. Aboutmovies 22:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Accepted

Okay-dokey; I've accepted the nomination. Wish me luck! --Haemo 06:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your final warning

If you insult me like this again "Something still needs to be done about users such as Bmedley Sutler and SevenOfDiamonds and their IP sockpuppets. They both, especially Bmedley Sutler, are accounts that used mostly for left-wing POV-pushing and trolling." you will be blocked. This is your final warning to stop. Bmedley Sutler 06:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This "final warning" is ridiculous. Perhaps I went a bit over the top, however, I stand by my comments. This is the first time anyone has ever accused me of attacking them. You have been constantly harassing users like myself and MONGO who you believe to be right-wing conservatives. These allegations are incorrect; neither MONGO nor myself can really be considered right-wing conservatives. I would appreciate (and many agree with me) if you would cease trolling and focus on improving the project.

About the report to ANI: I would have appreciated if you would have done two things. First, you should have discussed my removal of your warning before reporting me to ANI. You likely would have never needed to make that report if you had done this. Second, you should have informed me that I was being reported to ANI. It is considered good form to inform users when they have been reported. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please cease your personal attacks, I guess you can consider this a second warning. While I do not think you will, you seem to prefer official method of going about things. Thank You. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing in that response that can be considered a personal attack. Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read some policy then, calling people sockpuppets is in fact a personal attack. I am reffering to your original comment. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You have admitted to using IP socks. It was probably incorrect to suggest that Bmedley is involved in that too. I consider this discussion closed and would appreciate it if you (along with everyone else) would stop coming here to discuss it. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing?

Hello Pablo, when I type in the basic facts of an incident and cite my references, that is not POV-pushing. The BBC did cover the collapse of Building 7. Jane Stanley did state that the building collapsed before it in fact did. And I cited the reference to the video of Jane Stanley standing in front of Building 7 before the collapse. What do you not get? If you undo my changes again, you will be blocked. --Demosfoni 05:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:WEASEL and WP:YOUTUBE. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no weasel words and the YouTube link is direct to the actual video from the BBC. I suggest you look up UNDO WAR. --Demosfoni 05:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying things "went off without a hitch until..." implies that the BBC was in on some sort of plot, which is incorrect. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Went off without a hitch" is not weasel. It is a statement of fact. It is a way of saying that the BBC got it right until they started talking about building 7. That is what happened. I will restate "went off without a hitch" and then we are done here. No more revision war. okay? --Demosfoni 05:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert again, but if it's another example of POV-pushing I'm sure that someone else will. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron Weasley

Good work in reverting the orgy-boy's vandalism. I've reported him to AIV, so he should be going bye-bye soon. Again, nice work. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

On the term 'conspiracy theory'.

Hello Pablo,

We certainly append judgement on the term 'conspiracy theory', whether consciously or not. Under this definition come such theories as those suggesting that the 'rulers of the world' are lizards (hello David Icke) or that the U.S. government are in cahoots with extra-terrestrial beings. In popular culture it is always used to refer to the incredible (I use the word in its literal sense). It was used consistently with reference to 'The X-Files' for example.

So, it has connotations that the term 'alternative account' does not. I thought we wanted scholarly objectivity on Wikipedia: using glib popular terms at the expense of neutrality does not help towards such an aim.

Eustace Plimsoll 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We are being objective here. We use conspiracy theories because that is the term that reliable sources use. Pablo Talk | Contributions 17:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WPOR Collaboration of the Week

Greetings WikiProject Oregon employees. Well a big thanks to all those who helped improve Alis volat propriis and Fusitriton oregonensis last week. This week’s Stub improvement are: Government of Oregon which should be easy, and Miss Oregon. Again, no pressure to help with the collaboration, choose one, both, or neither. Also, feel free to opt out of the notifications at the new page dedicated to collaborative efforts at WPOR (newsletter is in R&D). Aboutmovies 18:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD Evidence

Hi Pablo, I found a bunch of new sources discussing the film The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie and listed them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie. Obviously some of this needs to be incorporated into the article, but I think this is more than sufficient to make this one a keeper. Was hoping you could take a look and reconsider you delete vote, or if you still think it should be deleted perhaps you can elaborate on your rationale.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the AfD, it's pretty obvious that it will close as a keep. Although I appreciate you improving the article, I don't feel that it's worth my time to reconsider. Thanks, Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WPOR Collaboration of the Week

Hello again WikiProject Oregon team members, its time for the next Collaboration of the Week. First a shout out to Sprkee for putting together some templates for this project. Now, in honor of Labor Day weekend and the outdoor nature of the activities that often accompany the three-day weekend, this week’s item is to de-redlink as many parks from the List of Oregon State Parks. Some may even by going to one of these places, a great opportunity to take a picture or two for an article. As always, participation is not required, though it is appreciated. And if you are caught, we will disavow any knowledge of your existence. Since we don’t want to waste any effort through duplication, please make a note on the talk page of which park article you are going to start. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Good day! Aboutmovies 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Edison 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

September WPOR Collaboration of the Week

First off, great job to all WikiProject Oregon folks for last week’s List of Oregon State Parks work. We pounded out six new state park articles: Sarah Helmick, Bald Peak, Bob Straub, Sumpter Valley Gold Dredge, Tumalo, and Peter Skene Ogden. Plus numerous other edits to improve the existing articles. As a reward, we are introducing the COTW award {{WPOR COTW award}}, and this time it goes to User:Woodstein52 for starting three of the articles.

On to this week. We are back to the usual two Top importance Stubs: Sunstone and Oregon, My Oregon. Both are stub pluses, so it shouldn’t take much to upgrade them both. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Good day! Aboutmovies 22:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WPOR Collaboration: 09172007

All righty WPOR ladies and gentleman, great job last week with our state song and gemstone. I have bumped them up to Start class. I haven’t looked at the contributions, so the COTW award will be later. This week’s articles are Darlene Hooley, by special request, and another Top stub, our very own state rock, the Thunderegg. Yes, apparently we have a state rock and state gemstone. No word on whether there is a state stone too. Hooley basically needs some sources to make it to the next level. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. In the words of Beaver Joe, whoop! Aboutmovies 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tribe 8

Please take a look at Tribe 8 and see if you think it's still prod-able. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's still pretty borderline, but now I think that an AfD would be more suitable (I'm not going to bother AfD'ing it, but someone else might). I'm going to remove the prod template. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fall WPOR COTW

Welcome to autmun and the weekly COTW news. Great job to those who helped out with last week’s articles: Darlene Hooley & Thunderegg. Both made great improvements. This week, something a little different. With fall upon us, the photo ops are going to be harder to get, so we have a photo request fulfillment drive. Take a look at the requested pictures for Oregon category or the graphics subproject for what’s needed. Then go take a picture, or search online for a free picture to upload (US gov sites are great and there are links available from the above links). If you fill a request, be sure to remove the request template from the article’s talk page. Our other item is another red link removal drive, this time on the flagship Oregon article. Like the state parks red link drive, try to coordinate on the talk page. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 01:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

random message

Um, I was just randomly browsing and suddenly an orange box popped up and told me I had a new message. Inside there was something apparently from you telling me I'd vandalized an article about Chamber music. I don't know what happened there, but I've never even seen an article on chamber music until now, let alone edited it. I don't think I've edited anything in over a year. Any idea what's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.97.196 (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone editing from your IP address vandalized the article.[5] Pablo Talk | Contributions 15:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Explain Why

I think you need to explain why you have removed links to Alex Jones movies. I was not agreeing or disagreeing with his views, I was adding links to his movies which are freely available on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.105.50 (talk • contribs)

We don't need to provide links to his propaganda films. Also, vandalizing my user page isn't going to help your cause. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Week 1 October WP:ORE COTW

I know everyone has been waiting anxiously for this week’s COTW, so here they are: Barlow Road and Columbia River Plateau. Both are almost Start class, just some formatting and referencing, plus a little expansion and they will be there!

As to last week, it is difficult to track the items we were working on, but I know some pictures were added and at least three red links were removed from Oregon, so thank you to all those who participated. The award winner will be GoodDamon for their creation of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute article. We have now worked through all the Top class stubs and are into the High class stubs. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Happy editing, and remember if you see a downed power line, don’t pick it up. Aboutmovies 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvard Model United Nations

Good call on this one. Bearian 13:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Pablo Talk | Contributions 17:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)