I don't exactly agree that the article should be wiped just because the user was banned. It seemed like a decently-written article. -- ヤギ
It definitely had some NPOV problems, but I think the bulk is salvageable. Hephaestos
The reasoning is as follows: if we allow banned users to contribute from anonymous IPs, then "banning" a user is meaningless.
This user was banned for good and sufficient reasons, after lengthy discussions on the mailing list, and following numerous attempts to negotiate with them. If they want to play here, let them ask to be un-banned on the mailing list.
To continue to astroturf their articles into the Wikipedia via a range of dynamically allocated anonymous IPs is an underhand way of flouting a ban that they are well aware of.
If you want to fill in the content, please re-write it in your own words, thus cutting off their source of narcissistic supply. The Anome
- That does make sense. -- ヤギ
- Right, I agree completely. I'll work on it tomorrow if nobody beats me to it; right now I'm going to catch some shuteye. :)
Hephaestos
Just a pet peeve. Can someone please identify which political circles the term is in use? One annoyance is when an article refers to certain people or certain groups without clearly stating who they are?
Pretty much anyone who thinks Bush is trying to take over the world. If you want a specific term, try liberal fringe radical pink commie anarchist arab-loving whackos who read indy news and the like. Susan Mason
- Advocates of this theory often argue that, on the day of the terrorst attacks, Israeli workers were warned not to go to work at the World Trade Center and that key government officials were warned not to fly on aircraft heading through New York and Washington airspace.
Are these "stay home" and "no fly" advisories generally accepted as indeed having been given? By not explicitly denying this, the article seems to imply that they are. One could argue that
- These views are regarded by most people as having no basis in fact
is such an explicit denial. However, it is unclear what, exactly, "most people" doubt. Is it the reality of these particular advisories, or rather that of the "Bush Knew" position overall?
--Ryguasu 20:23 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
The problem is, when u talk to the government it won't comment upon anything. On the other hand, I keep hearing this stuff and I don't know whether it's totally unfounded or not. In short, this is a conspiracy theory. Susan Mason
So is there any reason to believe (or not to believe) that 1) someone generally trusted by "most people" has used a public forum (e.g a press conference) to ask the government, "So, is that stuff about the Israeli WTC workers and the Washington/New York no-fly advisory true?", and that 2) the government has actually failed to respond to these particular questions? Is part of your reason for using the label "conspiracy theory" that evidence for these particular claims does not seem to be forthcoming? If so, I think this logic should be make explicit in the article. --Ryguasu 00:15 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
- If evidence was forthcoming this would be more than a conspiracy theory. I don't know if that logic needs to be made explicit, I am of the opinion that such logic is defined within the conspiracy theory article, something along the lines of how conpsiracy theories generally don't have any evidence because "they" have enough power to hide the evidence.
- I see no reason to believe that the government has discussed this issue, it tends to not discuss things. In fact, I would say there is definite reason to believe 2 because it would appear to be an official policy to never discuss any allegation of government wrongdoing.
- I agree that, if I accept the article's claim that this is a conspiracy theory at face value, I get an implicit answer to my question. However, I think the article should provide at least some reason to believe that these ideas actually are a conspiracy theory. (If no reasons for using the term "conspiracy theory" in this particular instance can be given, then applying the label comes to seem like a strange sort of meta-conspiracy.) Making the above logic explicit seems to be a step in this direction. --Ryguasu 00:44 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
redirected -豎眩
Susan, are you an i@!*%! why are you re-redirecting redirects when someone else (me in this case) is working on them? Pay some attention, have some consideration, and keep a graceful tone, or Ill suggest you be removed (again).--豎眩
Why don't you keep a @*(#&@ graceful tone yourself. Susan Mason