User talk:Xiutwel/temp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(end of Wikipedia advertisement)

wikibreak notice
Due to forced labour for the evilarchy, I am unable to contribute much to wikipedia in current times. Please consider contacting me by e-mail instead of this talk page |+|.

The current time, for me, is 05:21:51 (UTC+1) (Amsterdam winter time)

[edit] Outbox

Contents

[edit] Inbox

[edit] WP:BLP

The references you used on the September 11, 2001 talk pages do not meet the WP:RS standards for WP:BLP and must be removed as stated below.

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

--PTR (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Xiutwel/Joe Cell

Done as you requested. All three article histories are included. Cool Hand Luke 04:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. 04:00, 5 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Xiutwel‎ (Done as you requested. All three article histories are included.) (top)
  2. 03:59, 5 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Xiutwel/Joe Cell‎ (Rm templates, cats for userfication. There are three different article histories here. 25 February 2005; 26-28 August 2006; and 1 June-22 July 2007.) (top)
  3. 03:55, 5 February 2008 (hist) (diff) m User:Xiutwel/Joe Cell‎ (moved Joe Cell to User:Xiutwel/Joe Cell: Userfication of deleted article)
  4. 03:55, 5 February 2008 (hist) (diff) m User:Xiutwel/Joe Cell‎ (moved User:Joe Cell/Joe Cell to Joe Cell over redirect: oops)
  5. 03:54, 5 February 2008 (hist) (diff) m User:Xiutwel/Joe Cell‎ (moved Joe Cell to User:Joe Cell/Joe Cell: Userfication of deleted article.)

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

Hi there, I'm a little confused about your recent edits on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, and I was hoping you could explain it to me. I would have asked there, but I don't want to add to others' confusion, as there's already a lot going on. Is your only concern at this time that the mainstream account of 9/11 presented in the article is not sourced well enough? Okiefromokla questions? 18:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, my concern is more about this, what you wrote:

Xiutwel, you misinterpret the point of this talk page and Wikipedia. We are not out to decide what we think to be true and incorporate that into the article - its not about pro-mainstream wikipedians or otherwise. This is an encyclopedia of facts, and you are pushing a belief that is not supported by reliable sources of any kind. Okiefromokla questions? 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You say we are not out to decide what's true -- but you do, all the time, as do I. We both wish the article to reflect the truth, don't we? Nevertheless, we agrees via the guidelines to only use RS in doing so. Unfortunately, we are not in agreement on which sources are RS also. I believe all what is deemed RS have been suckered in via the NFSM. Truth remains the ultimate goal. It is what the guideines were written for to achieve with as less arguing as possible. How do you see that? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk)

I know we cannot write that 9/11 was an inside job. I don't even KNOW for sure. In my feeling, there is a 99% probability. (How is your estimate of there NOT being an inside job? 99%? 100%? 90%? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I generally see what individual editors believe as a non-issue, like you say. Sources are the only real things that matter, and it helps us keep a NPOV as well. I've replied to your requested changes to the lead at the talk page. Thanks for the explanation! Okiefromokla questions? 19:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, it's a non-issue. It just doesn't matter. Sources are what matters on Wikipedia. But if you must know what I personally think, I'd say the chances of it being an inside job are about 3%, at best. Okiefromokla questions? 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That's just looking through what some of the conspiracy theorists say. As far as what I believe, I'd say it's more like 0%. Okiefromokla questions? 21:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thx. I like that you share your thoughts with me, because I want to understand. When the chance of it being an inside job would be, however slight, nonzero, that means there is a finite possibility that it IS. And suppose it WERE an inside job. How could we find out? We would have to look at the facts. Any crime leaves a trace. But how could any observer find such a trace, when all reliable sources are quoting other reliable sources who do not want to mention facts which do not fit into the narrative? I believe the NFSM can give quite wrong results. Do you share this worry? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't share that worry in real life. In Wikipedia, it doesn't matter, because we are simply not investigators. We don't seek to prove or uncover things, we just report the conclusions drawn by experts like scientists, histrorians, scholars, etc. I use the word "report" because we are really like news reporters in that we (ideally) strive to be completely unbiased and keep any personal beliefs or preconcieved notions away from our editing. So considering the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job is irrelevant, because without reliable sources coming to that conclusion, we simply can't piece together a string of selected factoids that may or may not lead to that conclusion. You claim the article currently uses its own version of fact picking to support, as you call it, "narrative A". However, the only facts used are those from experts, reliable accounts, and official reports. The conclusion of "Narrative A" is supported directly by such reliable sources, whereas reliable sources do not support the conclusion of "narrative b", and therefore, we cannot include it. Likewise, we cannot select otherwise insignificant facts in such a way that implies that narrative B is correct, when such a conclusion, again, is not supported directly. Okiefromokla questions? 20:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "in real life"? I am objecting to the EXclusion of facts that ARE reported by RS. In order to be allowed to do that, you would need proof that version A is correct. If you don't have that proof, you should not leave out facts that are even reported by RS.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind infinity) 21:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:A gx7

I delete that page under Speedy deletion criterion U1. The user requested speedy deletion of their own user page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not really

I do not agree because I see your facts as facts that are not more relevant than thousand (million) others. What made them relevant is that with them is posible to construct an alternative vision. But I see this alternative vision totally lacking coherence with the full set of facts. Thus, your recolection of facts become arbitrary. I have been studying thoroughly the whole issue and the probability of something different from the oficial version having happened is zero. Cheney, Bush&Co were lucky and made a very inmoral use of 9/11 but they do not organize or consent it in any way. What I told you in the discussion page was rather patronizing but is a big true. You can take any historical event and elaborate an alternative theory. If you have a volume big enough of information about the fact, it will be possible to cherrypick some random facts and create a set to sustain the theory. Let me insist in Lawrence Wright book "The looming tower". There are lots of facts there and if a conspirational theory is created, all of them must be ruled out. E.g. Mohamed Atta personality and behaviour fits with what he did. Did USA governement manipulate Atta from his birth??. And the same stands for the rest of characters involved. There existed (and some still exist) and their existence is imposible to have been prepared with such advance. So your list of facts is an artifact of your suspicions that is unable to sustain a theory that takes account of all facts, thus cannot be considered a set. --Igor21 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See your page  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bro

Bro, i was were you are now regarding 9/11 articles, just look at the archive of the talk page (don't remember were). Can i trust you with my Email? --Striver - talk 22:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 14. I would appreciate an answer for the above question. --Striver - talk 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I've sent it to your e-mail. Did you receive it? --Striver - talk 23:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Information Clearing House

Informationclearinghouse.info was actually just a redirect to Information Clearing House, which was deleted last May in this AfD.

I'll move the deleted article content to User:Xiutwel/Information Clearing House. — Scientizzle 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11

Replied at my talk. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 02:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are great, Xiutwel! How do I agree with the unlock? 67.165.163.114 (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC) GUAM

Hi, Xiutwel

I have submitted a proposal for the structure of the 9/11 article and would appreciate your input.
Sincerely,
GuamIsGood (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can you please source this--I'd like to add it to the "Origins" section, or perhaps the lead

Hi Xiutwel,

A while back you voiced some interest in sourcing the following paragraph. It has been attacked by Titanium Dragon, of course, as a too-neutral explanation as to the origins of alternative theories regarding 9/11. Tit Dra wants to believe that anyone who even considers an alternative theory must be a conspiracy crank, and he/she is very aggressive in preserving this bias.

This paragraph makes clear the fact that a lot of us rational folks (NOT conspiracy cranks!) question the offical version of events. All it needs is bulletproof sourcing.

You up for it?

"Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, a growing number of people have begun to question the official version of events. (source) In particular they question that the four hijacked planes could have escaped American air defense for as long as they did, explained solely by human error, (source) and they question what role was played by the multiple simulataneous war exercises conducted that day by the U.S. military. (source) Also they question the likelihood that three steel-framed buildings might have collapsed solely due to fire, especially when only two of them were struck by aircraft (source) and there is no history of any steel-framed building having previously collapsed solely due to fire. (source) Critics note that the 9/11 Commission presumed good faith on the part of government officials, and therefore failed to ask the right questions or credit testimony that ran counter to the official version of events, in particular testimony by witnesses who claim to have suffered from secondary explosions in the buildings (source). Critics also note that President Bush refused to testify under oath, as requested by the 9/11 Commission. (source) Those who question the official version of events conclude that there may have been a coverup, either of negligence or complicity, and they demand further investigation into the matter. (source) In addition some have offered alternative theories that might better explain facts that are inconsistent with the official version of events. (source)"

Apostle12 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've cut it into seventeen pieces we can discuss and source. Nice project! (Would you like to correspond via mail? I would.)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
< xiutwel at-sign talk2000 dot nl >

[edit] 9/11 Debate: No means no

How many times do you need to hear the word no before you stop this? Do I need to write it in the sky? --Tarage (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but it doesn't end when we agree, it ends with the Wikipedia Guidelines, which you love to ignore. If you can't understand that, then I'm afraid you aren't ever going to get anything accomplished. Even if 99% of the world dissagrees, if there isn't a reliable source, Wikipedia will stand with that 1%. --Tarage (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You are confusing three things:
  • facts, as reported by RS, and
  • an existing (majority or significant minority) opinion, reported by a RS, versus
  • the opinion of the reliable sources themselves.
Wikipedia policy is not to copy the opinion of the RS, but to be neutral. Do you see the difference?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia makes no assertion as to what the RS say, only that they are RS. Facts are such a subjective idea that you will never find anything completly true. Again, if 99% of the world dissagrees with something, if they don't have RS to back it up, it won't be included here. You don't seem to understand that. --Tarage (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
With facts I do not mean they are necessarily true: they are believed to be true, and they are more simple in structure than a claim. "A passport was found" is quite a simple element of reality (or fiction). "The war on Terror was the reason to invade Afghanistan" is more complex, and I would label it a claim. I agree wikipedia calls for RS-backing. The problem I have with some other editors, is that they are asking for more than just a RS for the fact, to have it included: they ask for a recent opinion of an RS that the fact is important enough for inclusion. And that is not leading to neutrality.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
While it seems too trivial to include in the overall summary article, I'm not what you would call vehemently opposed to including the bit about the passport there (it was added to the Organizers article by another user earlier today), because it is reliably sourced and I don't see how it abets one side or the other. What I have a problem with is the way you seem to be judging reliable sources as being opinionated simply because they concur with the mainstream assessment. Just to get some clarification on this, how is it not original research (WP contributor's personal opinion in this case) to make such a claim about a source which meets the qualifications of an RS? ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 09:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is you are attempting to cherry pick facts, and string together random assortments of RS to concoct a story. This is called sythesis. You don't seem to understand that you can't do this, and without those 'missing' peices, you don't have any right to put any of it into the article. But you aren't ever going to listen to reason are you? --Tarage (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] my intentions

My personal "best guess" is that view B is correct, and view A is fiction. I am the opinion, though, that one can never be 100% sure of one's "certainties". E.g. when I was 18 years old, I knew for sure that all of life consisted of Classical physics. Two years later, I believed Quantum mechanics were ruling the universe. Another two years later I learned it (QM) was not 100% consistent with relativity, and now I'm not so sure what rules the universe. Opinions change. Certainties are often illusions. Between 2001-2004 I did not doubt view A at all. In 2004 I doubted a lot. Since 2005 I rarely doubt view B, but sometimes I still do. But: this is just my personal opinion. I swear, if Wikipedia was only entertaining view B, I would be with those who would let view A have DUE exposure. We are supposed to be neutral, and that means giving both views fair exposure.
I can well imagine you accuse me of single-purpose POV pushing. That is what I now, temporarily feel is needed. When an article is unbalanced and biased towards "A", we can correct it by either removing all support for "A", or balancing the POV's by adding view "B". Given the current situation, I prefer to include both views instead of removing both. The bare undisputed facts are that the towers collapsed and a lot of people died. That's not much of an article. Does this allow you to have some understanding for my work?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please Stop

Please stop your disruptive edits to Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks‎. If you continue, as you have promised, you may be blocked from editing. Please compare your actions with those listed at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Be aware that further tendentious edting will not be tolerated and action may be taken. Thank you. Okiefromokla questions? 19:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep you hair on, Okiefromokla. All I ever did is ask you to quote from the guidelines where you and others find your basis to censor this article.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
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.
Alright, here are some quotes, according Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. They are intended to help editors realize when they are beng disruptive.
  • I will reply in-between, using indent and italics.
    Thank you, this is what I asked!! (I am still waiting for the proof that adding verifiable facts which do not support the opinion of the RS woud be Synthesis, and/or a rationale to use the NFSM, and/or a rationale to ignore a significant minority view almost completely      — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
These are the same questions you bring up over and over, and they have been answered. I will do so for a final time, in shorter form.
There can be more than one view accepted by the scientific and historical communities, as long as reliable sources would be able to document that. Quote from WP:Disruptive editing: "Sometimes well-meaning editors may be misled by fringe publications or make honest mistakes when representing a citation. Such people may reasonably defend their positions for a short time, then concede the issue when they encounter better evidence or impartial feedback. (note that you have not done this) Articles are acceptable which document widely discredited hypotheses (and/or their advocates) which have an organized following, such as the Flat Earth Society. However, claims that the Earth is flat would be inappropriate in articles such as Earth or geography even if presented as a minority opinion." In other words, as I have told you many times, minority opinions are fine, but cannot but mingled with the factual account of 9/11 if they are not documented by reliable sources. Such unsourced wide-spread beliefs are notable under social phenomenon terms only, not as plausible facts to balance out the view supported by reliable sources. Okiefromokla questions? 23:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors. A single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behaviour is generally characterised as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. It is usually an indication of strong opinions."
  • I am candid about my own opinions re view B. They are less strong than those of some others, because others expressed they have no doubt at all re view A. Consensus on a talk page cannot overturn a wikipedia guideline, and the article violates WP:NPOV. I am not alone in asserting that; I am the only one left who still devotes a lot of his time in trying to make that clear. --X
Once again, inserting views by compiling a specific assortment of otherwise trivial facts is WP:OR, while pushing to insert an alternate view that is not supported by reliable sources violates WP:V. Okiefromokla questions? 23:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It becomes disruptive when:
  • "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people."
  • I try to only repeat myself when others ignore the points I make instead of refute them.´´ --X
When you first began, editors were refuting each of your points by explaining policy to you. But after months of seeing your repeated, very similar proposals without break, editors began to simply ignore you. They have told you about policy over and over, and they are tired of doing so. Obviously, you don't understand policy, but at this point, you should be attempting to understand it somewhere other than article talk pages. Okiefromokla questions? 23:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw."
  • I am NOT drawing inferences. I am not trying to word my POV in the article. The facts I would like included however are so suggestive that view A is incorrect, that the facts alone are viewed as POV by some editors. Which is ironic, given that the current article has omitted half the facts --X
Consensus has been that most of the facts you've wanted to be included are minor and do not need to be in the main 9/11 article, and that they should instead be in daughter articles such as "Responsibility for 9/11..." etc. Inserting selected bits of insignificant information in such a way that it seems to put forth a conclusion that is not supported by reliable sources is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Okiefromokla questions? 23:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of “suppressing information”, “censorship” or “denying facts”."
  • Censoring - Well, I stopped believing it is malice. It is probably just ignorance. --X
As stated at WP:Tendentious editing, suspecting censorship by the entire community is a sure sign that it's time to consider that you may be wrong. Okiefromokla questions? 23:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "...we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: what matters is not truth but verifiability."
  • I am not trying to insert non-RS based facts. I am not trying to add unsourced information. Everything I know about 911 is from the RS newspapers, basically. I live across the pond, you know, in Holland. And the same happens here: the RS are saying that "the Bush doctrine must be correct, or else the other RS would have discovered it." --X
Verifiability includes attempts at Original Research and Synthesis. Okiefromokla questions? 23:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To decide what is UNDUE we first need to agree on what is due. I made a proposal using percentages, but I received no reply. --X
Again, it has been explained many times why your proposals violate policy, and the community has rejected your proposals repeatedly. Still, you have pushed for many, many months in disruptively long proposals without hearing detailed explanations as to why they violate policy. I repeat, this has gone on long enough, and I will not hesitate to report you if you continue your disruptive behavior. Okiefromokla questions? 21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I hear your frustration, and I believe you yourself are honest about it. I resent you calling your side "the community", where it is but a "majority". It is not that I am not hearing your arguments, I am disagreeing. That may be because I misunderstood them, or because I am right and you are not. In both cases, this is a shared problem, not mine alone. I've explained why I did not agree with the policy arguments given, and in stead of searching for the crux I got abuse and repetition. I thank you for your efforts, and I expect we will indeed need mediation of arbitration to get out of this.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There is not only a majority against you, but every experienced editor and administrator who has come across these discussions is part of the "majority". The only editors supporting your proposals are newly registered or anonymous IP addresses. In other words, they are editors as yet unfamiliar with policy. Mediation is not necessary because, in this case, your proposals so obviously violate policy. Your actions are being disruptive because you have pursued this for months and seem unwilling to accept consensus against you, and are unable or unwilling to understand policy. Again, there are places to help you understand policy, but continuing to push this POV in excessively long, drawn out comments may very well get you blocked. That's what this warning is about. Okiefromokla questions? 23:36, 24 February 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.
Thank you for your answer, Okiefromokla. But we will not get any further without the help of experienced editors who are neutral to the 911 article. All the editors that agree with you are the ones garding it. It is their baby. I propose we stop debating for a while, since I so no advancement.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (deindent, replying to your topmost 23:52 edit in the archived section above)
    The flat earth society is not a significant minority, but a tiny one. The view B is documented to exist. The facts that proponents of B claim to base themselves on, are also documented to exist, but the wikipedia article is selectively leaving these out.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If you can find a reliable source that claims a certain 9/11 conspiracy theory is plausble, or shows there is dispute of the main stream view within the scientific and historical communities — this means experts — then we can talk. Otherwise, no. Okiefromokla questions? 01:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully: when RS are debunking articles written by scientists, then they are (be it poorly) describing this dispute, as well as engaging in it at the same time. The articles in Popular Mechanics prove there is a dispute. The polls and the prominent adherents prove it is bigger than tiny. Scholars for Truth should be enough, I should think. There are not many experts which speak out, because there are major career problems for those who do. That's why so many retired military men have spoken out: no more career issue. Minister Andreas von Bülow confided that he would never have spoken out when he was still in office.(2006) Now that he is not, he wrote a whole book questioning view A. See also: patriotsquestion911.org  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: mediation

I realize that the events category does not describe this concept perfectly. However, as there is no category for beliefs or religions, I think this is the best one out there. If there's another category you think is appropriate, by all means let me know. But I'm sticking with "Events" until I see something better. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 15:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

if you want to do that, it seems that this is the applicable rule: Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Are you sure you want to go there? // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 15:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Now you're talking about a different policy. As it is, I'm going to stand by my events category until someone can convince me otherwise. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 15:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV Homeopathy

You moved the section. I find many sections on that page that discuss particular topics. I would like to put that back on the page, collapse the area where Filll repeatedly claims "this is dangerous" and effectively gets the page moved to a lower traffic area. Anthon01 (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norman Mineta

There is a whole section in reference #6 labeled context. From the opening paragraph "To understand the significance of Norman Mineta’s testimony, it is necessary to understand how this testimony contradicts the 9/11 Commission Report. These contradictions prove that the United States Military was aware of the plane approaching the Pentagon and had the capabilities to intercept and shoot down the hostile aircraft". It goes into a lot more detail after that Edkollin (talk) 03:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC).

And what do you think we should do with that information? I would feel it is too much detail and too contentious to be included in the main article. It should go in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, I think. What do you say?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course it should go in the CT article and/or the Advanced knowlegde debate article. I am usually there so I forgot I was in the Main 9/11 talk page. I would get another cite or two of other CT thorists making the same claim. Then you can say some CT thoriests claim this proves that the United States Military was aware of the plane approaching the Pentagon and had the capabilities to intercept and shoot down the hostile aircraft Edkollin (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] You are most welcome, kind Sir Xiutwel

Thanks for stopping by my talk page, and the gracious comment and invitation. I assume you are referring to this comment.

Happy to help and I'm flattered by your invitation. WNDL42 (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You're Welcome

Sorry I didn't reply earlier. As most long-time editors know, sensitive wikipedia subjects have their fair share of zealots (probably government hired, HA! now there's a fringe theory!) who insist on using wikipedia to parrot the "official explanation" or "consensus opinion" and dismiss out of hand any attempt to correct mistakes as "tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theories". Eventually there comes a point where a user just has to take the initiative and edit the damn thing, and use the rulebook to beat back any attempt to revert positive changes. As you correctly point out, consensus opinion does not equal absolute fact, and there are provisions in the rules for just such a scenario. Sadly these trolls are often very adept at arguing about interpretation when it comes to the rules. This is why I believe that the moderator has such an important role, because he or she can clarify such matters beyond the point where these zealots can stall correction attempts with endless-loop arguments. Sadly you rarely see them because they're too busy with vandalism.

So to conclude my long rant, I'd say we'd be perfectly justified in making a direct edit. At least that way if the zealots wish to revert, the burden of proof is on them to justify it.▫Bad▫harlick♠ 17:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's very nice to see that you assume good faith on the parts of "zealots," "trolls," and "vandals" such as ourselves who happen to disagree with you, Harlick. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Al Qaeda

I don't think there's any sense in giving up. The main objector is Haemo, who seems to be taking RS as law rather than guideline. He seems to think that Reliable Sources reporting something as fact means that wikipedia should also report it as fact. I quote: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." - a reliable source stating that Al Qaeda claimed to be responsible does not DIRECTLY support the claim that it is a scientific fact. And Fox News is hardly an "exceptional source". When asked to provide sources that directly support that claim, Haemo ignores the question, as does everyone else. I say we should come up with a draft, implement it, and let the burden of proof be on the objectors if they wish to argue for a revert.▫Bad▫harlick♠ 00:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Before you start, let me direct your attention to the leading section of WP:V:
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
Please keep this in mind.~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 00:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The main intention here is to remove an unverified and unverifiable claim, and replace it with what is sourced in the reference, that is that Al Qaeda claim responsibility, and not that it has been proven inconclusively. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 10:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on my talk page

I've responded to it there. Okiefromokla questions? 03:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I responded again. Okiefromokla questions? 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WTC Passport Recovery

Exactly what is the alternate (documented) view regarding the passport recovered at the WTC site? Peter Grey (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know about the alternate view. I do not know whether there is a definite view. I've heard a lot of people say they find it unlikely that such a paper passport would survive the terrible crash. Aude, I believe, has earlier pointed out that a victim's plastic card has been returned in 2002. I can tell you though what the mainstream view is: the passport conclusively proved Al Qaeda involvement. That suffices to merit inclusion, for me.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
In other words, a factoid that contributes nothing. Peter Grey (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Check->factoid: <<A factoid is a spurious (unverified, incorrect, or invented) "fact">>. Nothing here is unverified, incorrect or invented.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Or irrelvant. Peter Grey (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
And exactly what source is spouting this "conclusively" nonsense? Peter Grey (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fish

Hi :-) It's explained in WP:TROUT. (I needed the redirect to contrast against WP:CLUE and WP:TROUT. It's only been used twice since...) Avb 10:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely -- when judiciously applied to those who have a reasonable clue level already, in response to a situation where their cluocratic betters see a clear potential for improvement. When applied inappropriately a pile-on will ensue. Avb 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Xiutwel/Peter Joseph

Userified: User:Xiutwel/Peter Joseph — Scientizzle 00:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I thought I'd sign in just to sort of reflect on the contributions I'd made and I noticed your message. Yeah I have given up on Wikipedia; I just got tired on the way things work around here. Have I spoken to you on here before? A gx7 (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PTR

I am trying to take a wiki-break and I reset my enforcer today. I've got RL things I need to be taking care of and I'm creating an article on a different topic that I want to add to WP (not on a controversial issue) - anyway, thanks for checking to make sure it's me.

I'll probably not be too involved on the 9/11 pages (at least I'm trying not to be) but I'll drop in now and again - you're welcome to move this there.

A few of my issues with what you want to add are (I have other issues but it's difficult - for me at least - to discuss mass changes).:

1. No reliable sources for the Bulow text that relate how it's more important than anyone else with an opinion. The conspiracy section is a summary of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article so the Bulow text must be a main part of that page to feature so prominently in the summary article. The last time I checked it didn't. 2. The "but" in the connecting of Cheney and Mineta is still acting as a denial of the latter part of the sentence. If you read the part on the word "however" in WP:Synth you'll see what I'm getting at. It doesn't matter which part of the sentence comes first - whatever comes after the "however" or the "but" is saying that the first part of the sentence is not to be believed. This is an english thing. So if you say, "Howard said he gave the list to Jill at the party but Jill said she left the before Howard got there.", it denies what Howard said. If you turn it around, "Jill said she left the party before Howard got there but Howard said he gave the list to Jill at the party." it denies what Jill said. 3. If you want to add infomation on the testimony and who said what on 9/11, you should probably put it in a subarticle because (unless reliable sources have reported one bit as more relevant than another) other people are going to want to add more and more information.

The last thing is, I understand everyone has a POV but we should only be repeating what the reliable sources have already printed and the article should be concise. --PTR (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. Two Ministers are more important than my opinion, wouldn't you say? Exactly how important... I could not say. But I feel like including it.
  2. I had not realized that, thanks, I will correct it in my next proposal!
  3. When it gets too long, we can always create a subarticle, agree?

Thanks for your feedback!  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ZtM

User:Xiutwel/Copy of: Zeitgeist the Movie. --Stephen 21:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Consensus

I only see another editor remarking; there were many more than that involved in the dispute. I'm reluctant to unprotect unless more people agree to stop edit warring. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I see Rx StrangeLove reverting you, Ice Cold Beer reverting you twice, and by MONGO here. There are more warring reversions, but those are just a few examples; I'd only unprotect if you could get an agreement from all the people who have been warring recently. Otherwise, I may unprotect and it'll start right up again. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 00:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see consensus that nobody is going to edit war. I know that's asking for quite a bit, but if you could go to their pages and ask for them to post on the article's talk page that would be great. That way, you guys can (hopefully) reach a compromise and we'll get back to smooth editing. If you'd like, I can also request their presence... your choice. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't help seeing this conversation. You suggest that maybe we could post on the talk page, we have been doing that for as long as I can remember, same issues dressed in slightly different ways over and over. RxS (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I've seen scattered bits and pieces; I didn't go through all the archives though, which is probably where the discussion is. How about this; Xiutwel posts some of his material, properly sourced and all, and you guys give a point-by-point breakdown of why it isn't fit for inclusion.
In reply to you, Xiutwel: unprotecting when there's no consensus makes me uneasy, though it seems that your edits are the only ones being reverted. Not that I'm implying that you're to blame; maybe if you stopped editing that article for a bit I could unprotect and then you could edit again when a compromise was reached? That's just an idea I'm throwing out. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That's what we've been doing, he posts or suggests something, doesn't get consensus for it and adds it anyway (or continues to argue well past any usefulness). It's been endless. RxS (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
May I ask why he's not getting your approval? One of his edits that cited a reliable source talking about a conspiracy theory about controlled demolition was reverted by an editor saying there was "no consensus", even though the edit was sound policy-wise. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
To Xiutwel: I have to stay uninvolved, or else I can't mediate the dispute effectively (I'd be biased otherwise). I can suggest, however, that you round up some really good reliable sources (from CNN, Telegraph, etc.) and suggest them on the talk page of the article, along with the info you'd like to add. I'll look over it, as I hope the other editors will too, and we'll piece them apart and see if there's anything wrong. If someone objects, we'll settle the concerns. It won't be the fastest of processes, but hopefully it will be effective. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You could go ahead and add it anywhere where relevant, though perhaps a new section would be advisable. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Add it to the talk page, I mean. Then, invite the other editors to look at it and tell you why they think it's wrong. That should be constructive. Remember, make sure you have reliable sources backing up everything. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I've commented. I'm going to sleep, however; I'll come back tomorrow and catch up to you. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Sheff's edit is a good start at compromise. At least nobody's fighting anymore :) I've added more on the talk page. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockrates-duo

From WP:SOCK

Role accounts, accounts which are used by multiple people, are only officially sanctioned on Wikipedia in exceptional cases. If you run one account with multiple users, it is likely to be blocked. You're using this account to participate in debates you already are engaged in with your other account. That's not allowed, but before I ask for a block I'd ask you to please shut it down. Thanks. RxS (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bring it to AN/I and see what people think. Make sure you make it clear 2 people edit under the account and that you edit the same pages with that account as you do with this one. You'll probably get a better hearing if you bring it up yourself. RxS (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed question 7 from medcab

It's a good idea, and I'm going somewhere with it. Just give me time :-) Also, please don't use your sock there; I know it's a good-faith sock(...right?), but it might cause confusion in a Bad Way :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange question: Are there any diffs you can pull up of you or others being uncivil, and either wish to apologize for or want an apology from? This is where I've been heading... Xavexgoem (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

reply: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-02-12_9/11_conspiracy_theories/archive1 would have Ireneshusband's first request plus the discussion that ensued. There wasn't any discussion about AN/I, though; perhaps you're thinking of the article's talk? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

reply: I'm confused. Did you find it? I don't remember that being linked with the case at all, except maybe in passing? Xavexgoem (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Check my user talk page :). --Green-Dragon (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re 9/11 arbcom

As an informal mediator, I can't pick sides. My opinion is that it's possibly relevant, but I think that's up to arbcom more than an informal mediator. If a clerk comes to me, I'll make a statement. Otherwise, I don't want to get involved anymore than anyone else really does. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My 'the article sucks' comment. (Pedant)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I have left a very long and perhaps tedious and pedantic reply on my talk page, if you are interested. I appreciate your advice. It's a pleasure to make your acquaintance, and thanks for your generous contributions to Wikipedia. (though I do say this to almost everyone, I sincerely mean it when I say it.) User:Pedant (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Lectures on the 6th

Kim is starting the lectures on April 6th around 15:00 UTC (although that is apparently open to discussion). Just a reminder (might want to add it to your watchlist :-p) Xavexgoem (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] lectures

It is 15:00 UTC, and I'd like to start talking on irc.freenode.net, #wikipedia-en-lectures.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 revert

  • Hi, Chris, when you look at the definition of vandalism, you can see that the edits you reverted were not vandalism. You might disagree with them, and even be partially correct, but vandalism has the intention to do harm. Accusing editors wrongly of vandalising disrupts wikipedia. Warning In a 2008 arbitration case administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that revert was anything but removing vandalism. Three paragraphs of conspiracy theories dumped into the middle of the article are not helpful. If you want to take this to arbitration enforcement, be my guest. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 22:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I know good and well what vandalism is. He continued to add material after he was warned by myself and other edits to stop. That's vandalism as far as I'm concerned. I'm also well-aware of the arbitration ruling, having been involved in the case. Like I said, if you have a problem with my revert, take it up with them. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 22:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You may also note that the warning I gave him was not related to vandalism, and included a polite request to discuss his edits at the talk page. I really don't see how you can find fault with that. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 22:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Lectures

#wikipedia-en-lectures @ 15:00 today, yay. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter

The Terrorism WikiProject
April 2008 Newsletter

News
Archives • Discussion

Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Lectures

Today (Apr 20th), around 15:00 UTC! Possibly on Skype, but certainly on IRC (#wikipedia-en-lectures on freenode)! I don't actually know about the Skype details... Message me on Skype (xavexgoem) about that, if you have it (no harm in getting it, either), and then maybe by that time I'll have a clue :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

Consider yourself appropriately warned. Raul654 (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration enforcement

See [2]. Jehochman Talk 02:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned: indefinitely for disruptive editing in 9/11 related articles. After reviewing the arbitration enforcement posting concerning you and looking at this edit, I have decided to ban you indefinitely from all pages relating to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. If you have any questions or objections, please read over WP:BAN and WP:RCAM. Chetblong (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I am completely astonished. Can such a decision be based on events prior to the arbcom decisions and already considered by the arbcom which never considered to sanction the user? Shouldn't you be a little more specific about the alleged policy violations? Why didn't you gave any prior warning as explicitly required by the arbcom? (Obviously the warning above by Raul doesn't count since Xiutwel didn't edit after it.)--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop wikilawyering. If you continue, I am going to propose a siteban. Jehochman Talk 19:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Lectures

They are today (27 April 2008) at 15:00 UTC. Here is the skype link & here's the IRC link. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)