Talk:Apollo missions tracked by independent parties

message: This page is a POV fork of Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. It has been started in an attempt to delete content from that page, following a content dispute that remains unresolved. That page is still protected, and the creation of this page is yet another attempt to avoid consensus building and find an administrative alternative to collaborative editing. Gravitor 08:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain why you think that this article is a POV fork? In particular, could you explain what POV it is catering to, and that POV that it is ignoring? Also, could you please discuss changes on the talk page? I reverted your deletion and redirect.  Lunokhod 10:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Gravitor, There is no consensus on your article. It only looks like it because it hasn't been edited for awhile. This article is moving towards consensus, because everyone (except you and Carfiend) thinks this was a good idea. Branson03 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pretty funny given that the previous article was Gravitor's content fork from the hoax article. Wahkeenah 19:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fail to see any POV in this article.  It is a simple statement of facts.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an attempt to make an end run around the article that  is currently locked - to avoid having to use Wikipedia process and reach consensus. Gravitor 00:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you provide some specific verifiable, reliable sources that have evidence that these observations did not take place?  Bubba73 (talk), 00:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Which observations? Gravitor 22:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV fork

message: Gravitor: I apologize in advance, but I am no longer going to respond to you until you start responding to the questions asked of you on the talk pages. If you read through these, you will see that most of us have responded to every concern you have brought up (even though you might have disagreed). You, on the other hand, consistently evade our questions. As one example: Why don't you answer my question above as to why you think that this article is a POV fork, and describe that POV that the article is catering to? I am glad to see that your level of disruptive behavior has diminished somewhat since the filing of the RfC on your behavior, but as a professional editor in real life, I still find your behavior unacceptable. So, once again, I apologize for ignoring you in the future; you are just a colossal waste of my time. Lunokhod 09:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept your apology. Gravitor 22:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message for Gravitor 

message: This should be merged into the original article - as above  - this is a POV fork. We did not go 11:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We did not go is just saying it is a POV Fork, because Gravitor said it was. POV Forks is when the NPOV rule is broken. The article is in a NPOV. For We did not go, a non-NPOV would be if the hoax article said that it is fact, not a theory, because it has never (*and never will be*) proven. (The *s represent a non-NPOV statement). Branson03 22:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even think that We did not go is coming back. Branson03 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please, explain why this is a POV fork, I have read the WP:POV_fork page, and I do not understand how this is such. Feel free to assume I know nothing about WP policies, and start from first principles. LeeG 21:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please explain. This is not written in  a POV, it is just a statement of facts. If this article is a POV fork, Then the page User:Branson03 is a POV fork. Branson03 18:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that Gravitor has posted here, and on several other pages, but has not answered a very simple question.  As a result I conclude the stance cannot be justified, therefore I'll remove the merge tag from this page sometime tonight (again giving more than adequate time for a response). LeeG 17:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: On what basis did you announce the result? Who decided how long the poll was to last, or what margin the vote needed to be? Oh, you, because you can make whatever rules fit your POV, I forgot! It looks like a tie to me at this point. Gravitor 01:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was speaking because the tag was removed as on the talk page. Branson03 01:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with evidence article 

message: I saw a show on TV that showed tracking of Apollo by Jodrell Bank.  In the dopler, you could definitely see that they had landed on the moon.  This website discusses Jodrell's tracking of unmanned missions.  Is there a source of their tracking of manned lunar missions?  Bubba73 (talk), 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another mention of it.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jodrell Bank 

message: Link to the Elaine Halbedel photos: . Cesarakg 03:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add this