User talk:Thomist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Thomist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Kingturtle 22:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image:Fort Marcy.jpg

Hi there! Can you please place the appropriate copyright tag on Image:Fort Marcy.jpg, I've marked it as GFDL-presumed, but if you'd like to release it under the GFDL, just remove the -presumed|lightdarkness from the tag, and you'll be all set. Thanks --lightdarkness (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Capitol Bollards.jpg

Thanks for adding this image. You said it is an image you took, but its resolution is extremely small. If possible, could you upload the highest-resolution-possible image? Wikipedia has no limits on resolution size. Thanks. --tomf688{talk} 02:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kavanaugh Image Vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. --Smashingworth 05:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mediation request

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee in regard to the article Jay Robert Nash. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the mediation, and indicate an agreement to mediate within fourteen days. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Jay_Robert_Nash, and indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation or contact a member of the Mediation Committee.

[edit] License tagging for Image:PennAveWhiteHouse.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PennAveWhiteHouse.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-3 Sentry

You'll need to find sources more reliable than a student newspaper to corroborate any statement that an order to shoot down Flight 93 was given. See Wikipedia: Reliable Sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for conspiracy theories. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


The quarterly Magazine of the University of St. Thomas is the source article and not known as a journal for "conspiracy theory." I recommend reading the article or the related article that was published by the University of St. Thomas online in The Aquin. I think it is unfair to dismiss articles published by a respected university as "conspiracy theory" unless you have some source to demonstrate that the infomation in the articles is not based on the facts. Thomist 17:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

Please do not remove messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted comments. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

1. Per WP:BLP, Wikipedia takes a conservative view of material in biographies of living individuals. Information which might be perceived as damaging should only be included if meticulously sourced and presented in carefully neutral tones, and any novel synthesis based on that information is absolutely forbidden. The onus is on you, as the editor wishing to include content, to reach consensus first, rather than simply pushing the changes you want. So: take it to the Talk page, and once a form of words has been agreed with other editors on the article then perhaps it can be included. Tendentious editing of articles may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

2. Blanking your Talk page of active discussions, warnings and other notices which have current relevance is considered disruptive and may also result in your being blocked. Just zis Guy you know? 08:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Dear JzG:

I am not seeking to be "disruptive." I archived the page material on the suggestion of another user. I am not an expert here at Wikipedia so I would appreciate your patience and your help.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the source material. I am weary of other editors calling me names and refusing to read the source material, in particular the most authoritative document, the official Report made public by the District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals.

I hope you will not abandon the discussion by only issuing me a warning without examining the facts. Mediation by you or others you think might be fair-minded would be appreciated. Thank you, Thomist 17:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UAL Flight 93 / University of St. Thomas

I notice a pattern with your edits about United Airlines Flight 93, Brett Kavanaugh, and E-3 Sentry. If you want to make outlandish claims they should come from solid sources. Wikipedia, and the general public, will not accept such beliefs without evidence. Hearsay and books by questionable people are not enough. You should evaluate how and why you came to believe such things. C56C 00:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

My edit to the UAL flight 93 page was referenced to two publications published by the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Calling the University of St. Thomas "questionable people" making "outlandish claims" and accusing the university's publications of spreading "hearsay" and "conspiracy theories" are serious accusations. What evidence do you have that UST is "not a solid source?" Thomist 00:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That source is trash. Your source isn't the "University." Not at all. Your source is a student author of the student paper[1]. Here is the home page to this student newspaper.[2]
So with a straight face your are telling me that you believe this student from a student newspaper over experts, military, private, congress, and the thousands of people invovled in this "cover up."
Now if you want to believe a student newspaper over the government taht's your own loss. It's not reiable for a source here in the real world. C56C 01:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Dear C56C:

I would not call the Aquin newspaper "trash." I think the University's Department of Journalism may disagree with you. What evidence do you have that "The Aquin" is "trash?" What source do you have that Dave Forster, the Editor and author of the article is "trash?" I don't think university student journalists, especially student editors would agree with your view that because they are students their articles are "trash."

It's claiming something that there is no outside support of, which is contrary to the media, government, and investigators. C56C 04:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And how do you dismiss the The Magazine of the University of St. Thomas, which also featured an article? The Magazine source was removed by someone from the Flight 93 page but the reference is "The Magazine of The University of St. Thomas, Summer 2002, Vol. XVIII, Number 3, page 54., Published by The University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota." The Magazine is professionally published and not produced by students. Is this magazine also trash?

It's claiming something that there is no outside support of, which is contrary to the media, government, and investigators. C56C 04:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know that Congress or others have disagreed with the article, do you? I have not said there is a cover-up? The story is not contradicted by the military IT COMES FROM A MILITARY SOURCE, Lt. Anthony Kuczynski, the E-3 pilot and ROTC graduate of the University of St. Thomas. Are you calling this pilot "trash?"

The 9/11 report was a congressional report. Read it: [3]. They do not claim it was shot down. Funny you believe a student's article in a student paper and not a congressional report. C56C 04:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because the story has not been picked up and reported endlessly worldwide does not mean we must conclude it is "not true." It was an interesting local story about an alumnus that was published by a credible academic institution. The guy was in the air on September 11, 2001. Move on. It is not a conspiracy theory. Thomist 02:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The 9/11 report was a congressional report. Read it: [4]. They do not claim it was shot down. C56C 04:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

The articles published by the University of St. Thomas also did not claim the plane was shot down. So what is your point? Thomist 21:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Really then why did you add in this section[5] with the title "Air Force ordered to shoot down plane" and source the school paper in that section. In that section you wrote, "The University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) newspaper, The Aquin, broke the news that Lt. Kuzynski, an alumnus, was ordered to shoot down the plane." So now you are denying that huh? Keep backpedaling...C56C 01:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

I added the section because sources from two university publications quoted an Air Force pilot saying he was ordered to shoot down the airliner. Please READ CAREFULLY there is a difference between "ordered to shoot" and "shooting". I am not denying anything I have written. Temperatures are warm this summer but you really need to cool down. Thomist 17:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


How come no else from that flight crew apart from Lt. Anthony Kuczynski has talked about it? Why hasn't he approached the mainstream media about it? Since you continue to push this story, you are implying that there is conspiracy theory in that there is a cover-up because this "story" hasn't broken out yet. Where's the University of St. Thomas investigative journalism to colloborate Kuczynski's words? One person's interview in a student newspaper still does not make a Reliable Source in my opinion. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  05:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Dear Netsnipe:

I do not know if someone other than Lt. Kuczynsky has talked about it. Most people don't know he talked about his experience.

You ask, "Why hasn't he approached the mainstream media?" Do you know that he hasn't?

I am not pushing any story nor am I implying there is any conspiracy theory. I was only sharing the facts as I found them. I had originally posted another source, the University magazine in addition to the student publication. The reference to the magazine has been repeatedly taken down. Only the student publication is online. I think the university magazine carries more weight since it is produced by professional rather than student journalists.

As for why the story did not make the mainstream I do not know. The mainstream press cannot report everything. The article was a local news story about a ROTC alumnus who told his story of being an E-3 Air Force pilot on September 11. I found it interesting that the order was given to shoot down the plane, even if it was not actually shot down. It makes one wonder, who gave the order? At any rate I see no reason to dismiss a story from a university simply because it was a local and not a national story.

I would like to ask if you could help me. I resent user C56C putting the headline "Conspiracy Theories" on my talk page as if awarding me a label that I am some kind of "nut". You seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia since you advised me about archiving. How does a person properly get a rude insulting label that invites prejudice removed from their talk page. Thank you. Thomist 14:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Change the heading to whatever you want. It's not against the rules to reformat the appearance/structure of your talk page per se. Just don't change the words of someone else. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  16:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thomist resents the term conspiracy theory, and retitled this section. Gee I wonder why. C56C 01:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Dear C56C:

Calling people names like "conspiracy theorist" is #5 on the list of Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression. Lacking a fact-based argument you frequently use a number of these techniques on discussion pages. Thomist 02:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay so I am now part of a "cover up"? Yeah, you really expect to be taken seriously? Provide evidence or go away.
You are claiming a conspiracy theory, as defined by the dictionary, "conspiracy theory- A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act."[6] C56C 06:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Dear C56C:

I have never claimed there is any conspiracy theory. I have said you lack a fact-based argument and you call people names. You are telling me to "go away." This is my user talk page, where do you want me to go? ;-) Thomist 12:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WOW

I really must say WOW. You go around believing Christopher Ruddy's claims, but not a well source article. Two seconds at google would have turned up the Grants From Scaife Foundations, 1994-1996, which are located at many other places not to mention Scaife.org. C56C 20:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of "believing Christopher Ruddy's claims." Mr. Ruddy's reporting on the death of Vincent Foster offered acccurate facts as well as a number of serious errors and omissions. Other than that, I have no idea what you are blabbering about regarding Scaife Foundations or whatever. Good luck. Thomist 20:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This: "do not accuse me of 'believing Christopher Ruddy's claims'" does not follow this: Ruddy "offered acccurate facts." I agree that you "have no idea" about the stuff I've written so stop trying to add things without sources. C56C 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about whatever it is you are talking about? Thomist 20:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes: Give sources for your claims. Do not remove material that is sourced. C56C 21:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please stop removing sourced material, adding unsourced or poorly sourced material, and generally making tendentious edits, or you may be blocked from editing. Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing [7] material cited by the press is not acceptable. C56C 22:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foster stuff

As you well know, Foster committeed suicide according to official reports. Only conspiracy followers, and people without any education in forensic science who have a political motivation disagree. Yet, that did not stop you from claiming [8] was "found shot to death." Committing suicide and being "found shot to death" read quite differently if someone does not know the background. Stop pushing your POV. thus, I removed all the poorly sourced claims. C56C 23:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You turned this other article into a POV fest.[9] A suicide a "crime scene." Yeah right... Reverted. C56C 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


As you well know evidence that Foster was murdered was ordered included in the Official Report by the U.S. Court of Appeals. That is a big problem isn't it? Thomist 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense... Don't call that place a "crime scene", etc. and or try to paint a conspiracy. Wikipedia is not here to advance dellusions.C56C 02:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy indeed

I did a domain check for who owns fbicover-up.com (the webpage you have been sprinkling around as the truth), and found Hugh Turley owns and operates it. Turley he worked with Christopher Ruddy and is a conservative opposed to Clinton and liberalism. He has spoken for and worked with Accuracy in Media (you know the people who get funding from Scaife).[10][11] See how this stuff goes back to the same people? On closer look, I think you know Turley. C56C 23:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The vast right-wing conspiracy theory. Thomist 02:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The fringe of society isn't so vast. Just a few well-funded cons., and people who choose to believe them. C56C 02:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/o/User_talk%7EThomist_4a78.html"