User talk:ThreeE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi ThreeE! I bought a new book : "The Italian Gambit (and) A Guiding Repertoire for White - e4!" by Jude Acers and George Laven, ISBN 1-55369-604-2, edited by Trafford Publishing. Maybe you can insert it in "References". Thanks for your new article! Bye! --Eric Guez 07:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks for your answer! Could you tell me more about you (I saw all your contributions, it is great !). I don't find your profile on wiki, do you have one? --Eric Guez 15:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• I don't have a profile -- just enjoy studying chess openings. I like the kibitzing some other sites allow for games, but I have never found one that allowed wiki-like kibitzing for opening theory -- so I created one: Chess/Opening Theory. I guess I like the idea of back-and-forth discussion on what are the best lines. It may take a while to get the basic content to critical mass, and I'm sure we'll have some formatting issues, but I think it will be great. I find the analysis relaxing. So please help! ThreeE 15:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 No cigar. 2 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina 3 Maher Arar 4 X-38

[edit] No cigar.

Sure, the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism webpage mentions hurricanes, but not Hurricane Katrina, which is what a source must show. All the other divine retribution allegations specifically state that this particular hurricane was retribution for some specific act. Also, regarding your deletion vote, this is probably the only article I've started for which I can say I'll lose no sleep whatsoever if it is deleted - but I do believe that this information is notable enough to be in Wikipedia (as there are similar articles relating loopy theories for other occurances), and this was my effort to contain the loopiness to a single place where those interested in such things could have their viewing pleasure without cluttering up the serious articles on the subject (we had some debate in Political effects of Hurricane Katrina regarding the inclusion of the divine retribution materials there). Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 03:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Respectfully, I don't agree with you. Pastafarians firmly believe that Katrina, and all hurricanes are evidence of his noodly greatness. However, I will make some minor changes in the phrasing as a compromise. ThreeE 04:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I see the point you're trying to make, but the sad truth is that some people will cast their votes in upcoming elections based on what certain political or religious figures have told them was the message God was sending through Hurricane Katrina. Poking fun at those sentiments does not make the fact go away. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Then, of course, that assertion belong on the article tropical cyclone since there is nothing special about Katrina in that the Pastafarians believe it the Flying Spaghetti Monster controlled it. However, you'll find that BD2412 will disagree with me an insist the text belongs in the Katrina articles for the same reason he asserts that global warming needs to be covered in depth in the Katrina articles. --24.165.233.150 04:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That, of course, would only be true if I said that every reference connecting hurricanes to global warming belonged in Katrina or some related article. But of course, I am only making the argument with respect to persons who have raised global warming in the context of Katrina. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure I understand your debate. Here's my position: the article is worthless, but if it is going to stay around, then I think my religion (I'm a Pastafarian) should be represented where others are. I am a believer in the noodly one, and I believe that He created Kristina. ThreeE 05:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Well I'm sure it's just an omission that none of the notable FSM groups have posted about Katrina rather than just hurricanes in general. I expect the great noodly one will reach out any moment and cause the correction of that little omission. --Gmaxwell 05:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Ah, but I didn't delete the Pastafarian reference - I simply placed it in the context of the general paragraph on divine retribution (where other non-Katrina specific references live). See how happy it is there, with its family! -- BD2412 ^talk 19:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina

I realize that there were strong feelings on both sides with respect to the outcome of the AfD for this article, now located at Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina. I would like to assure those who expressed concerns about the content, tone, and potential for degradation of this article that I intend for it to continue to exist only as long as is necessary to draw the contributions of fringe theorists away from the more substantial Hurricane Katrina articles. Once interest in this topic dies down, I'll quietly trim and merge this information into the appropriate general-topic articles. In the interim, I will carefully watch this page to prevent it from being abused, and I will continue to work towards making this article NPOV, properly sourced, and useful to those seeking an accurate record of the hysterics that so often follows catastrophe. Cheers. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maher Arar

Hi... you asked whether Arar's claims of torture have been verified. As a matter of law, in Canada at least, following the common-law doctrine known as res judicata, his claims became legal fact (as opposed to mere allegations) from the time the Commission of Inquiry formally accepted the findings of the Toope Report. --Rrburke 17:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes -- all true. But this part of the Canadian's government opinion -- not fact nor verification.ThreeE 21:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-38

You put some concerns/opinions on the Talk:X-38 Crew Return Vehicle page a while ago, mainly about the naming issue. There's a new proposal that's been brought up that the pages should be unmerged. I tend to agree and have so stated. Since you've weighed in before, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at the discussion (under the header "Wrong Decision") and give your opinion, either way. Thanks! Akradecki 16:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)