User talk:Celeronel

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the civility policy if you would like to learn more about interacting with others. However, unconstructive accusations are considered not very nice and immediately removed. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop, and consider improving the Wikipedia community rather than attempting to damage it. Thank you.

Charles Matthews (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And please start fresh threads at the bottom, which is the convention here. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the questions on the discussion page
Contrivance (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Richard gage
A tag has been placed on Richard gage requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ged UK (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Richard gage
A tag has been placed on Richard gage, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 19:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am contesting the deletion since Richard Gage is one of the most visible personality of the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement. He has claimed pretty extreme views of the World Trade Center being brought down by a Controlled Demolition. He has created an organisation called 9/11 Architects for the truth and his influence on the many topics related to 9/11 has been disputed by the media and researchers. His website was even mentioned at Representative Jane Harman (held in Washington, DC)televised hearings of H.R. 1955 and S. 1959, the specificity of this was about possible domestic activists. One speaker, Mark Weitzman of the Wiesenthal Center (ironically founded by Holocaust survivor Simon Wiesenthal to educate the public about war crimes), claimed that architects, engineers, and scientists that question the official 9/11 narrative are the same as alleged violent jihadist groups. This was further implied in a Powerpoint presentation in which Weitzman showed architect Richard Gage’s website, http://AE911Truth.org, alongside alleged violent jihadist sites. Gage has criticized the 9/11 official story about the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC7. On the basis of his professional expertise of steel frame buildings, Gage contends the buildings could not have been brought down the way the government has explained and offers alternative theories supported by evidence. Regardless of whether one believes the counterarguments about the events of 9/11, free speech and questioning of the government on such crucial issues should not be criminalized. I believe the influence of this guy who goes all over the world should be notable enough to have a unbiased look at his claims.Celeronel (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This needs to go on the article page. I'll copy it over for you. --Ged UK (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help Ged!!!!Celeronel (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sock of Wtcsurvivor
__NOINDEX__ See Suspected sock puppets/Wtcsurvivor. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)