If you are new here, welcome. The page Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers has links to a tutorial, and answers to frequently-asked questions.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 23:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This...work is super!....what is the next step...is it best to minimize the entire collapse story on the old WTC7 within the current WTC7 article and have what your working on as a subarticle? I am thinking that is the best option, but we'll have to watch it closely since the WTC7 collapse is a favorite of the truth squad.--MONGO 02:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is WTC 7 after twin tower collapse...it is at the left margin of the smoke...again here with heavy smoke from the demolished buildings and fires in WTC7--MONGO 02:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Some other things to do are a paragraph on NIST's recommnedations; maybe updating citations to the final report where possible, instead of citing interim reports; removing the blurb about thermate; maybe updating a few things about ongoing reconstruction.

I'm afraid a sub-article on the collapse of 7 WTC would be a magnet for crazies. We've got Collapse of the World Trade Center, and 7 World Trade Center. We should be able to get all the information about the actual collapse into those two, but they'll have to be balanced. I haven't looked closely at Collapse of the WTC for a while. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Tom harrison, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Tom harrison/7wtc-collapse-draft.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion of this article, which you contributed to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texe Marrs (2nd nomination). Thanks. BigJim707 (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we are about to get into an edit war, and seeing as we have very similar taste (I see you on my watchlist a lot), lets just knock it on the head here. I don't like "see also" sections per se, for reasons in hasty edit summaries and also be case they are so easy to add, and the link is often specious in the extreme. Thats not the case here of course, I acting on principal rather than, eh, against you if you know what I mean. I'll revert myself and call a truce, or we can write up a section if there are online sources (I dont see anything in the few books I have). Deal. Ceoil (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]