Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 26

message: Can someone clarify what the difference is between this page and the September 11, 2001 page is? They are near mirrors of each other. --Daysleeper47 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed now. It should redirect to this page. Thanks for pointing it out. Tom Harrison Talk 15:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[September 11, 2001]] 

message: Mediation has been requested.   Who is up for a cool-off period?  Abe Froman 17:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Abe I think it will be great for everyone to argue their points now on actual policy/guideline. --NuclearZer0 17:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Surprised to see Tom refuse mediation, would think since he is such an ardent supporter of his point, that he would feel they had enough validity to be presented to a third party. At least some people feel they have valid points to make. --NuclearZer0 17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagreed to mediation (though I was not the first) because policy and consensus are both against the link; and the argument behind that has already been excessive. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not seen a policy discussion yet. Care to actually participate in one? Abe makes points above based on the fact that he doesnt know you highlight a link to see the citation, the points regarding WP:EL have been refuted above, some seem randomly chosen, stating Cooperative Research points to myspace pages ... --NuclearZer0 17:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It has been discussed here at tedious length, and a consensus has emerged that the link not be included. Tom Harrison Talk 17:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 10/3 is not a concensus and straw polls do not close in 2 days, please read the page on straw polls. Also Thatcher131 explained to you to seek mediation if you were going to push this issue, reason your ignoring them? --NuclearZer0 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Polls are bad anyway, but I have yet to see a valid argument for inclusion of the link. I routinely remove it from any article I find it in.--MONGO 17:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, so you have a problem with the page totally not based on its relation to this page. Thank you for being adult enough to admit that. --NuclearZer0 17:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Although I too believe that concensus has been established, it is obvious that two or three editors will continue to argue the matter regardless.  The only way to have it settled once and for all is to go through the motions likely leading to an eventual RfAr.  Getting a case accepted will depend on showing attempts at dispute resolution, so I felt it worth a shot if for no other reason than to check off a few more boxes. --StuffOfInterest 17:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering Lovelight, Jdoorjam, and PTR have not voiced opinions yet, citing a "concensus" is highly premature. Also I still think mediation is best as Tom has yet to present an actual arguement and the same for Mongo, which in a concensus would show. Can't just say you agree, have to give a reason. --NuclearZer0 17:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have to reply to every comment out there?  The reason I gave a reason is in hope of convincing some of the "disagree" votes to change in order to help move this issue to some sort of conclusion. --StuffOfInterest 17:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In the external link matter, we have steadily progressed through the dispute resolution process: discussion -> outside opinion -> straw poll -> and finally a mediation request.  With the mediation request opposed, I am not sure what the next step is.  I feel an RfC will be a rehash of the existing discussion; ultimately unhelpful.  I find the status quo, with the link remaining, untenable as well.  Comments on next steps?  Abe Froman 17:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should pursuade those that agree with you to take the mediation to make their points. An RfC cannot go through without dispute resolution attempts, especially with my being willing and MONGO, Tom and Sam not being willing, same for an RFAr. Though I doubt MONGO wants to see ArbCom anytime soon, and I too do not agree with them. I am not really sure how Sam entered this discussion or some of the others you informed who didnt even voice opinions above yet PTR was not invited or JDoorjam. --NuclearZer0 17:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Though I doubt MONGO wants to see ArbCom anytime soon"...are you insinuating something here, my friend?--MONGO 18:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF, I teach at that school. --NuclearZer0 18:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you know what they say; those who can, do; those who can't, teach. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasnt a literal teach, *giggle*. You get a blue star for trying. --NuclearZer0 18:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't read too much into it.  After all, your last experiense with ArbCom was less than pleasant.  --StuffOfInterest 18:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's still confounding. I have no idea why NuclearUmpf is even discussing arbcom...and there has never been even a suggestion from them that I can't edit or comment on articles.--MONGO 18:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said you couldnt? cup of tea perhaps? --NuclearZer0 18:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you =) Better it came from a third party. --NuclearZer0 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have removed the link. Tom Harrison Talk 17:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Readded, even per Straw Polls page, it says wait a week or longer, also the poll was never agreed on by all participants, another requirement. --NuclearZer0 17:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "I am not sure what the next step is." The sensible next step is for the minority pushing for the link against all opposition to realise that it is not appropriate and to let it drop. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Requested for Cooperative Research 911 Timeline 

message: The page has been fully protected now. This is by no means an endorsement of the current version of the page, and it is only as a result of a request at WP:RFPP that I came here to protect the page. Hopefully, everything will be settled, and the protection can be lifted in a few days. Nishkid64 17:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By looking at the history, the edit war was started to remove a link  that had consensus.  The editors trying to remove the link will not sign up for formal dispute resolution, or make reasonable arguments as to why the link should be removed.  The protected page is with the link removed.  I request that the full protection be removed, and the link be added, until Tom and MANGO, the ones who keep removing the link,  agree to formal dispute resolution.  If they don't agree to formal resolution, then they must have a weak argument.  You should not allow their vandalism to stand, when they won't back up their changes with a formal ruling.—Slipgrid 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's MONGO, not MANGO and my edits are never vandalism. We are not going to aide that website in their quest for monies for whatever and their cherry-picking of references to POV push their agenda. One wonders what the motivations are of conspiracy theorists, but it is generally always profiteering. Wiki may also be soliciting for financial assistance, but they do so here, on their own website, so there is a difference. Articles that exist to promote profiteering of conspiracy theory books and misinformation as well as those who continuously try to aide and abet those websites and materials that are profit driven should be viewed as misusuing Wikipedia resources.--MONGO 18:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow just wow. You seriously need a cup of tea today. --NuclearZer0 18:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Wiki soliciting on their own site is different then CR soliciting on their site ... Or are you advocating the removal of all links to Wikipedia that exist on the web while the donating thing is up? Anyway MONgO I think you need to just chill out a bit today, you seem wiki stressed and hostile. Who is this "we" you talk about, remember you do not speak for Wikipedia, you aren't even an admin anymore. --NuclearZer0 18:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I'm done with your personal attacks...whether I am or am not an admin is irrelevent to this situation and indeed, even as an admin, I never had any more say here than any other editor. I don't need a cup of tea, anymore than Sam Blanning does, so I suggest right now you stop making these kinds of comments.--MONGO 19:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to relax MONGO, there is no personal attack there. I am simply stating you should not make "we" statements because you do not speak for Wikipedia. If you choose to or not, have a cup of tea, you really need to relax and stop being so hostile. --NuclearZer0 20:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wrong place to make the request.  Try over at WP:RFPP.  Also, protecting admins don't protect a particular version.  They just stop the edting until the dispute is resolved or enough parties loose interest. --StuffOfInterest 18:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the protecting admin, I cannot revert to a previous version of the page, unless it is clear vandalism. This is not clear vandalism, so I will not revert to a different version of the page. I'm only doing my job, and I am by no means trying to endorse any version of the page. Also, inserting the link back as an intimidation device is not going to work here. Nishkid64 18:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that, by protecting the page in the middle of a revert war, you are choosing sides.  The link was discussed, and was on the page for about two weeks.  Then a revert war started on the basis of the straw poll, and the site is now protecting the results of the revert war.  You are protecting the changes made by people who will not agree to the formal dispute resolution.  For protection to ever be removed from this page, they will have to agree to the dispute resolution, or a disputed tag will have to be placed on the article.  The version of the page that is protected should be the version before the revert war started.  You should not protect the changes of the people who will not agree to formal mediation.—Slipgrid 18:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus Christ, you mean the page was protected in The Wrong Version? Well that's never happened before. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know! we will hold a straw poll ... you get a red star for this, it was a better attempt then the above. Red stars are good just so you know. --NuclearZer0 18:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You can make jokes, and they are very funny, but the page shouldn't have to be protected.  Protecting the page goes against the very idea of a wiki.  You should try to find a way to resolve the dispute.—Slipgrid 18:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "If they don't agree to formal resolution, then they must have a weak argument." What nonsense. Mediation is not there so you can go through the same arguments again, only in a "formal process", so that those who are already fed up and can't be bothered to go through it all again drop their opposition. Its purpose is to introduce an outside, uninvolved party, in the hope that an environment more conducive to compromise can be reached. Firstly, there is no room for compromise here. Either the link is in or it isn't. Secondly, we've been through all the points at least twice, we've had outside involvement (although someone rather snidely asked what I thought I was doing here; look up WP:OWN when you have a spare moment), and by any stretch of the imagination we've reached consensus. Mediation would not help anything. I was asked whether I supported mediation, and my response was: no, we are not trained seals, and no, we will not jump through more hoops. Every additional breath spent on this issue is one wasted. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O lets stop playing already, you haven't even made an arguement really, WP:EL, then its refuted, citations, then its shown Abe didnt realize he had to hold the mouse over the link, then the conspiracy tone, then its found out that Abe didnt read any of the articles on the page to know that. PS you dramatizing my remark doesnt change my words, I asked why you were informed and not others that actually participated in the above discussion, I think you need a cup of tea and to settle down, you are becoming a bit hostile. Perhaps you should read WP:EL. --NuclearZer0 18:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If the arguments you made earlier hold water, then go through the "formal process" so we can resolve this dispute once and for all.  If you want to continue to dribble nonsense without a third party to evaluate your claims, then revert the article to the version right before the revert wars started.  Right now, we are protecting a disputed version of a disputed page, and you are standing in the way of resolving the dispute.—Slipgrid 18:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since mediation didn't work you are always welcome to take this to the next step in dispute resolution, which is WP:RfAr.  --StuffOfInterest 19:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I asked for ArbCom enforcement a couple weeks ago  with regards to Nuclear's, editing here (re:"tendentious editing or edit warring). Though I was turned down at that time, I respectfully disagree with Thatcher13's decision. I feel that his editing here is uncivil and combative and easily falls under the "tendentious editing or edit warring" section of his sanction. I have a hard time believing that this style of editing is acceptable on Wikipedia. Rx StrangeLove 20:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess when you cannot argue your point you attack the person. Maybe not much credit is given to people lodging complaints that also refuse to attempt to resolve the situation. ArbCom rulings are not scarlet letters or items to throw around so you can avoid discussing issues with your fellow editors. This is why one of the main policies here is "Discuss the edit, not the editor". --NuclearZer0 20:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the situation is resolved, with consensus (not unanimous but large majority) on not adding that link. Please just respect that. --Aude (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before half of you chimed in I had already given up, I guess it shows most of the people here are not even reading this talk page before chiming in. Some are appearing because they follow their friends history pages as well, which is the sad part. The voting in Tandem issue. --NuclearZer0 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF please.  I've been on wikibreak and too busy in real life, to follow every single detail in this discussion, and spend much time arguing over something that has no consensus or consensus against it.  I've been on this page for well over a year, well aware of the discussions here, and will get more involved as time permits.  --Aude (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AGF? Not sure where the violation is. I am assuming you read the section you voted in, did you not? Its where I stated I gave up. Sorry you are too busy to read the section you voted in, I guess to you knowing the current discussion and what you are voting on wasnt necessary. --NuclearZer0 02:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Slipgrid, maybe you didn't know, but protection is supposed to be implemented during edit wars. What would the point of it if it wasn't used to stop edit wars? Also, I already said I am not choosing sides. I am only doing my job, and I don't take in account who's been editing the page prior to the protection. I just apply it, and that's all. Nishkid64 20:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Nish, they are just following protocol. While it often leaves the locking admin in a bad position, they are not suppose to revert the page unless its vandalism. --NuclearZer0 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would absolutely agree that the discussion needs a chance to cool off. Peter Grey 22:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Protection 

message: Shouldn't the opening paragraph refer to the terrorists as Islamist and not Islamic?  They are subtly different words that mean very different things.  The first meaning extremists of the religion while the later refers to the religion as a whole.-Jeff (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree if it's verifiable, but unfortunately the hijackers never spelled out their motives.  It does already call them extremists. Peter Grey 18:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic? 

message: Why is there no mention of the gridlock traffic in the city after the attacks or the mass exodus of many of its citizens? I can't find this mentioned anywhere but I remember people couldn't get of the city. Aaron Bowen (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traffic