User:Slipgrid/Archive 1

Hi --06:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Define Islamofascism
Islamofascists are Moslems who use fascist tactics to try and subjugate us and make us dhimmis in the hope of achieving Islamoworlddomination.

Jokes
I was just kidding, and made those comments in a light-hearted way. You're obviously not going to taken away to Gitmo, are you? Cerebral Warrior 16:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that your country (assuming your American) does not do a lot of unorthodox things in the War on Terror. But please understand the threat that terrorism poses to global security and to the lives of innocent civilians. To fight a threat so serious is the highest priority for many nations, and thus their excesses must be forgiven in light of the potential benefits of the War on Terror. Cerebral Warrior 17:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusation
Don't post this junk on my talkpage again. --MONGO 05:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Craigslist Item
Thanks for passing that along. I'd say it qualifies as a smoking gun. And speaking of smoking guns, I took a look at Freepress and saw the piece where it's said a smoking gun has been found proving Iranian involvement in Iraq. Now I'm waiting for them to drag out Colin Powell so he can tell us, again, that "We know what they have, and we know where it is." Too bad the first time he said this it turned out to be one of those things that "we don't know that we don't know." Heh. Cryptonymius 06:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Cooperative Research timeline at 911 attacks article

 * Please assent or dissent to mediation in the 911 external timeline link matter.   Thanks.

Talkpage
Don't post to my talkpage anymore. ever.--MONGO 15:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't post your POV to Wikipedia anymore. ever. —Slipgrid 16:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIV, please
Comments like this don't help an already touchy situation. Raymond Arritt 16:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He deserves everything he gets. When he has to delete messages from his own talk archives, something is amiss.  Mongo is the best example of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia.  If he can't answer simple criticisms, but can only delete them instead, then he gets no sympathy from me.  Asking questions is civil.  Deleting the questions, because you want to continue to introduce POV into articles is not civil.  —Slipgrid 16:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have to tolerate trolling from you. You're the one who has in the past tried to add 9/11 conspiracy theory nonsense to this website...you show up after no recent edits twice in the past couple days to harass me at my talkpage. I don't have to put up with that and I won't.--MONGO 16:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I stopped contributing because of people like you. You are the worst of the worst.  I am not a troll; you are worst than a troll. —Slipgrid 16:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on other editors
Regarding this edit:

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --MCB 01:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup.Proabivouac 04:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I'm just not happy with some of his edits, and didn't have time to explain.  But, I'll never do it again. -Slipgrid 23:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Change Title
Request for change in consensus: Change title to "Franklin Coverup Incident"

"A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."

The existing title is, in the opinion of many who have commented (Gyrofrog, Awfultin, Wayne, Tom1976, Conexion, Apostle 12), fatally biased. To start out saying that the subject material is a "hoax" is indefensible, especially when that point of view is hardly universal. A specially called county grand jury used the word "hoax;" that is all. And there is ample reason to believe that those who comprised the jury had a vested interest in protecting local people.

Request for Comment: Change title to more neutral "Franklin Coverup Incident" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apostle12 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

9/11 ArbCom sanction warning
Consider this the notice. &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Review
I have started a review here of the 9/11 article you are welcome to comment. BigDunc Talk 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You are awesome!!
I agree with you 100% on your endeavors with wikipedia. The POV of the 9/11 article is completely rigged and it is disgusting how many administrators are hovering over the page and protecting it with the "official story". We should join forces. --MavereX (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comma
There was NO consensus for a change like that. Commas are not necessary after every date. I don't know where you're getting this strange idea from. The example you left on my talk page is correct, but the change you made in the article is not. You are referring to an event that happened, not describing it. Example: "On Spetember 11, 2001, America was attacked" vs. "The 9/11 Truth Movement is the name adopted by organizations and individuals that question the mainstream account of the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States." See, it's correct the way it is. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)