Hi there. I'd be curious to know what part of WP:NOT you feel the article falls under; I've said as much on the AFD discussion, and think you should flesh out your nomination with some more reasoning. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Just saying WP:NOT doesn't cut it around here -- especially when you have an 8 year old article that's chock full of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 and a half years old, to be precise. There aren't any articles older than 2001. It's still a very old article though, by Wikipedia standards. -kotra (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vashir, I am very new to whole editing wikipedia side of things so please, bare with me! I have been reading over the 9/11 truth movement article and find it incredibly biased. I found this on the talk page [discussion] where you mentioned you flagged the article with NPOV. I would like to note the NPOV has been removed but no discussion was made since its inception. Now, I am not sure if this against rules or what not. But I was eager to know if you could re-flag the article in the hope some future discussion is made to neutralize this article? Cdynas (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive uploads.
The next time you upload an inappropriate image, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Acroterion _(talk) 01:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]