Tony0937

Thanks Tony :-)

Thanks for the comment on my wiki page. It was definitely not very nice to discover that the changes I had made were almost immediately deleted. Apparently I didn't quite follow some protocol or other. I'll see if I can avoid such a fate for my entries next time.

Jarel75 (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep it civil

Hi Tony, like I say, I understand and respect your concerns with the article. Please note that the charge of "POV Pushing" is normally considered uncivil. I don't think there is any reason, at this early point, to see any defects of the article as the result of intentional bias. Right now we're having an ordinary disagreement about the sourcing of a claim and where it fits in the article.--Thomas Basboll 07:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 17:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice Civil post

Thanks for the positive comment. I get frustrated when we have articles that are painfully rigorous in the distinction between facts and suppositions or theories, like probably nowhere in WP does it say "God created the Universe" or "There is no God, the Universe was created by something else" or "The Universe created God" or anything so rash, but we have no problem saying as if it is a well-referenced fact "Hijackers took control of 4 aircraft, and those same aircraft, piloted by those same hijackers, hit the twin towers, causing the towers to weaken enough that they turned into dust." --which, disregarding the actual truth or falsehood, we do not have a reliable reference for. But put the statement this way: "It was reported by the press that hijackers took control of 4 aircraft, and two of the same or similar aircraft, apparently piloted by those same hijackers, hit the twin towers. The towers caught fire and subsequently collapsed." and you are a conspiracy nut.

Nice to meet you. Drop by any time. User:Pedant (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

many thanks

...for your kindness, sincerely. Quantumentanglement (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

I have placed a notice about your editing on WP:AE. Feel free to comment. Jehochman ^Talk 08:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The 911 articles are under arbitration rulings. See WP:ARB9/11 for details. Your edits are exclusively to the 911 area and look a lot like a WP:SPA. You are subject to the arb rulings sinc you edit this area, plus regular wiki remedies. Follow wiki policies and dont' be disruptive. Don't push fringe theories without solid refs and don't give them WP:UNDUE weight. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

You have recently asked a number of editors with pro-conspiracy theorist viewpoints to join in a discussion. Please stop this immediately - you are being disruptive and you are violating Wikipedia:Canvassing. Hut 8.5 18:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to Arthur Rubin as pro-conspiracy theorist I think he would take offense. He can be downright antagonistic at times but I respect him. As I have talked to him previously about Bentham Open I felt he would be interested. As far as WLRoss is concerned I think his viewpoint is decidedly neutral. I talked to him since he had communicated with Bentham[1]. Neither are pro conspiracy as you put it. I have not discussed this with anyone else.Tony0937 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)