User talk:PureLogic

Heated "Debate"

It will never get any easier to have rational discussion in those pages, though it does happen from time to time. If you haven't been following them long though, you have yet find out that the rules are gamed and policy is routinely violated in order to keep "thought provoking" material out of the articles. Check out this[1] talk page, it's really interesting. Also, if you haven't already, you might want to read through archives of these talk pages and you will get a really good idea of how it works in there and what works and what doesn't. Talk to you later! SkeenaR 23:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to coordinated intent, you might find this section interesting [2]. Within are some links to a couple of newspaper articles reporting on government policy concerning public perception management in cyberspace. Gulf Islands, cool. Good luck! SkeenaR 03:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested unprotecting the Sept 11 page. It's overdue to come off and I'm not even sure why it was put there to begin with. That should enable you to edit there. SkeenaR 00:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Wait a sec..You mean you are actually not able to edit Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center because there is no edit button for you? SkeenaR 00:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome for anything that might have helped. Personally I'm not sure what really happened, but I think this stuff needs to be presented or nothing will ever be resolved. SkeenaR 19:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vid

I haven't seen it, but I'll check it out. It looks pretty interesting. Thanks. Here's another interesting one. [3]And nice job on the article. SkeenaR 22:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Barrie Zwicker article. Try merging the contents together. Also note [4] SkeenaR 03:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zwicker

Actually, if you type barrie zwicker into the search box to the left, you will be taken directly to his page. I wouldn't get too worked up over something like that. The more work you do in this encyclopedia, the more obstacles you will find. But you did do a good job on the article, and actually, there is nothing wrong with the article that was already here, it's got regular status. It was created by Striver on Feb 24 originally looking like this [5] and has expanded to its current form. It was once nominated for deletion, but was kept because there was no consensus to get rid of it. It is also listed here [6] What you should do is take the material out of the article you wrote that is not duplicated in the other article and add it. I would do it a little bit a time due to the apparent sensitivity of some people regarding this subject. SkeenaR 18:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)UTC is Coordinated Universal Time, GMT is Greenwich Mean Time. Where I am it's beer time.[reply]

Hi, just to let you know, I've changed the page you created into a Redirect, so that anyone who types in Barrie Wallace Zwicker in the search box will go automatically to Barrie Zwicker. You can still see what you wrote on that page by looking at the history, or going here, which means you can merge anything from your article into the original as needed. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The tradition is to just reply over on the other person's talk page, because, as you said, the person won't otherwise get a notification. Some people copy over the other person's text, which is good for keeping threads together, though gets to be a pain. Some state on their talk pages that they will only answer on their own page, forcing you to remember and go check. I'm not such a fan of the last option, but people can do whatever they want on their own pages. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 22:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful

Please be more careful and check that you are not creating material that is already on this encyclopedia; see here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrie Wallace Zwicker.--Jersey Devil 08:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double voting

Dear PureLogic,

You currently have cast two "Keep" votes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Truth Movement. If this was accidental, can you change one of the "Keep" votes into a "Comment"? Thanks, Andjam 09:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 9/11 consensus panel

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on 9/11 consensus panel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 9/11 consensus panel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 9/11 consensus panel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 consensus panel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the article, and I even searched for sources, and couldn't find any that met WP:RS. Most sources were nothing more than press releases, or on websites of equally POV organizations. I first went ahead and speedily deleted the article, but, after thinking about it, decided that the existence of multiple notable people on the group is a "claim of significance or importance". As such, I reverted my deletion. However, I immediately sent the article to AfD, because though that may be a claim of importance, it does nothing to establish notability. Specifically, we have a rule which says that notability is not inherited. Unless you can produce legitimate reliable sources that actually talk about the organization itself, the article should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend not worrying about things like the urls on those "references"; unless you can establish that the panel itself is notable (not its members), then the article will be deleted no matter how it is formatted. For that matter, you can't even demonstrate the notability of the members by articles that they have written themselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to you on the article's talk page--you actually completely misunderstood WP:NOTINHERITED--the whole point of that section is that saying "Group X is notable because its members are famous" is a bad argument. In order for the article to be kept, you need to show that the group is notable, not that its members are. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 consensus panel edits / COI

Please refrain from inserting practically the same block of text in a variety of articles without proper sourcing. It possibly gives one event too much weight (notability? see above.) and is hardly written in an encyclopedic style. Usually, one well sourced sentence should suffice.

Also, I see you are involved in that panel yourself, your behaviour could thus be considered WP:COI. So, I suggest you discuss your text and back it up with WP:RS. For now, I'm reverting your edits. Best regards, SK (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Please read WP:COI, which is our recommendations for people editing with a conflict of interest. We very strongly recommend you do not edit any articles on subjects you are directly involved with. In fact, it is quite worrisome that all of your recent edits have been either about the Consensus Panel, or about members related to the panel, or adding the book written by a fellow panel member to another article. Any one of these isn't technically against the rules as an individual matter...taken all together it sure makes it look like you are here to push a specific point of view and/or support your work and the work of your fellow panelists. So, like I said, please read that guideline, and consider changing your editing habits accordingly. For example, if you think that a particular book by a co-member belongs in an article, a better way to proceed is probably to suggest the addition on the article's talk page, rather than edit it in directly yourself. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 consensus panel text added to all members

Don't do it. Some of the people you link it to may be notable (although, note that there is no way to determine whether someone has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize), but that organization isn't notable. Stop spamming information about the 9/11 consensus panel to all potentially relevant articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Ray Griffin

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]