The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] General comments

First it would be useful to know what it was you were apparently topic banned for to anyone looking to adopt you. Regarding the question you asked me, I guess my answer would be like this: Presumably the scientific viewpoint can clearly be demonstrated by reliable sources, as can the nonscientific opinion, and that both qualify as significant enough for inclusion in the given article under WP:Undue weight. If that is the case, and I have to assume it is for the purpose of this generic statement, then both arguments should be presented with the appropriate weight. If the viewpoint of the majority of the scientific community can be established as such, through reliable peer reviewed sources, then that would have to be given the greater weight. This is not to say that evidence which damages the scientific viewpoint couldn't be presented as well, provided it too meets the same reliability and verifiability guidelines. There are in science, as I remember it anyway, quite a few "But what about (X)?" arguments which can't yet be answered by the majority scientific opinion, and which seem to run contrary to them. The primary questions as a result would be:

• (1) Is there, or could there be, another, perhaps more focused article, which could reasonably deal with the material in question - if the answer is yes, then it might belong there
• (2) Is there a section for "Controversies" or "disputes" in the article - if yes, all such material critical of both sides could be but there
• (3) Is it perhaps the case that the non-scientific source, despite that status, might be from a "more reliable" source than the scientific sources used? Unlikely, but, if yes, then the more reliable source would be given more weight, in general.

It would really help to know the specifics you are talking about, though. :) John Carter (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, you are neither new nor inexperienced, and (to be frank) given the months of advance warning you received for tendentious editing et al, your topic ban on 9/11-related articles should come as no surprise to you. Per what is explicitly stated on the Adopt-a-User page, I would recommend that you try Editor Assistance instead. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You actually don't need permission to send e-mail, although it does help to let people know they're getting one. Feel free. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You've got mail

{{Talkback|Chetblong}}

[edit] You have my empathy

I took some time to see what happened to you, needless to say, I've seen it before. My mailbox is open; I'll share some thoughts with the admin who banned you from the topic.

Best wishes. Tachyonbursts (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption

This user has been offered adoption by Redmarkviolinist (If you wish adoption by another user click here)

Sure. No problem. I'll start creating the lesson ASAP. Contact me if you have any questions. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 14:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Redmarkviolinist/VirtualClassroom/Xiutwel. Follow this link. I can clean up your userpage for you if you'd like. Put something about you on it, and tell me what colors you like. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 02:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Lectures time

Yeah, we're posting on time for once (40 minutes early). Todays lecture is by Vassyana (an expert mediator), who will be talking about how to deal with conflicts, whether you are a mediator or not. Hope to see you there! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.