User:Cs32en/Archive/Talk/006

Thank you for your clear explanation.
On Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I think I needed to hear another perspective to keep from going nuts. Nice reasoning about the other people in the photo making it less suitable. Hopefully, a new, even more suitable photo than the stern lecture one will surface in the future. Well, anyway: thanks, and have a beautiful day.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. I actually did not agree with Izzedine's argument that the "hand-holding" photo would be disrespectful (as you probably have noticed), but I found other aspects of that photo that made it, in my view, unsuitable for the infobox. Let's look out for a better photo, though, as you said. Cs32en  03:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Albert Stubblebine
As I got involved in the Albert Stubblebine article, I saw your message on the discussion page and thought the text you proposed would be a great addition to the paragraph that deals with General Stubblebine's involvement in psychic warfare. I wrote a message to User:J.smith saying as much and thought that I should let you know. As I feel that we may be more or less on the same wavelength I would also like your advice about how I should behave in this environment which I find is quite hostile and unfriendly when one tries to deviate from the official story on 9/11. Thank you. Oclupak (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message! I'll write more later on. My first advice would be to familiarize yourself with the environment before making contributions that are potentially controversial. Have a look at previous discussion and at the edit histories of the various articles. Editing in different areas of the encyclopedia helps to see how policies are actually applied in the different areas (and how they could be changed potentially). Regards. Cs32en  12:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to back off a bit from attempting to edit anything controversial for a while but will keep an eye on what is happening on those pages which are crucial to me. Just wanted to let you know that I found it reassuring seeing posts like yours surrounding my failed attempts to make sense with the gatekeepers who stubbornly prohibit anyone from editing an article without first "discussing" it in the talk page and having to then hear them say that discussion is also prohibited on the talk page. Who are those thugs? I wouldn't be surprised if they were part of the white collar branch of the Blackwater Corp. (rebranded as Xe).

I have today written to the copyright holder of the "One Nation Under Siege" documentary. Hopefully he will grant me a waiver which will allow me to link to the banned YouTube video. I have learned a thing or two already by reading your posts and I will be looking forward to see what more you have to contribute to the pages that I care about. Good day. Oclupak (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Discussing" in the context of Wikipedia talk pages means presenting information that potentially is (a) reliably sourced (b) relevant to the article's subject (c) important enough to be included in the article with due weight. It does not matter whether the information is actually true. Of course, the three aspects that I've mentioned can be subject to discussion, so the important thing is to argue along these lines, whether the outcome of the discussion is that the text is included in the article or not. In general, do not propose text that is entirely sourced to advocacy websites (and remind people not to do this with their sources, which may advocate the opposite viewpoint). Don't attach your own interpretations to information taken from the sources, but try to summarize the main information, and potentially, arguments, that can be found in the sources. Be careful when summarizing information from multiple sources, as this often leads to synthesis or original research. My edit history may show various examples of edits that were either uncontroversial (or that may just have not been challenged), others that were controversial and were removed, and other controversial edits that remains, sometimes in a modified form. Some controversial discussions and arbitration procedures in which I have been involved may also be useful to familiarize yourself with the atmosphere in some corners of the encyclopedia. Keep in mind that policy-oriented arguments are not useless, but that the dispute resolution and arbitration process often revolves more about rhetoric, unspecific statements and accusations, misleading representations of facts, group dynamics etc. Don't take any particular controversy that you get involved in too seriously (in the sense of trying to prove that you are right about WP policies with regard to a particular dispute). Get to know the other editors and their style of editing, discussing, and dispute resolution. Let me know if you have further questions. Cs32en  16:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your insight, Cs32en. When you say it, somehow it sounds more convincing than when it comes from the keyboard of one of those people I was referring to above and who behave as if both the article and the talk pages were their very own private property on which we were merely allowed to pass through while they had the full power and authority to expel us at any time without any possibility of appeal. Who granted them such awesome powers, I'd like to know. This morning I found some comfort upon stumbling haphazardly upon a tidbit of Wikipedia folklore that seemed to so contradict the heavy handed manner of the thugs that I encountered recently that it occurred to me that it could be a hoax or a joke. It is this : IAR. The attitude described in What "Ignore all rules" means corresponds exactly to the atmosphere I was hoping to encounter upon joining Wikipedia as an editor.


 * By witnessing your perseverance on these controversial pages, it gives me faith and hope that perhaps one day I too will be able to deal with those people in a productive manner. Thanks for your encouraging words. Merci bien. Oclupak (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In most cases, lawlessness enhances the power of the powerful. WP:IAR may be no different. Did you have a look at the discussion at Arbitration Enforcement which involved myself as well as another editor? It may be instructive. And yes, your implication that some of the policy-related arguments sound hollow if they come from people who regularly either disregard those policies, or support those who are disregarding them, or just jump on a bandwagon when they see an opportunity to advance their agenda, may well be correct. There are some "uninvolved" administrators that seem to be inclined to follow their arguments, yet others, maybe including Arbcom members, may take a more independent view on the actual controversies between editors. I'm not particularly eager to test that assumption, though. Cs32en  20:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I had never heard of Arbitration Enforcement. I looked it up in Wikipedia, where else? About a discussion involving you and another editor, I wouldn't know where to begin to look. Please show me the way. Oclupak (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You can find some info about Arbitration here. There are also some links at the top of the September 11 attacks talk page, as well as on the talk pages of other articles in the 9/11 topics area. Regards. Cs32en  13:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention your proposed edit mentioned at the very bottom of the Talk:Albert Stubblebine page. When are you going to publish in the main article the relevant information you picked up in the Daily Mail and which attenuates the loony label which the gatekeepers of the article insist on pinning on him? It's been almost a month since you posted the information in the talk page. What is holding you back from porting it to the main article? Oclupak (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Short answer: I don't remember the details of the discussion on that talk page. Albert Stubblebine is maybe not the most important article, both for Wikipedia in general and for the area of 9/11 related articles in particular. Maybe others will take care of that. I have limited time right now, so I can't say when I will have a look at this. Cs32en  16:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, Cs32en. I'm going to spend my 1-month trial trying to move the collapse article toward GA. We'll see how it goes.--Thomas B (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The 9/11 ct article has changed quite a bit since you've left. Please let me know what you think about it. Also, I've spent some work on the article on Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Are you familiar with Matrix calculus? If yes, please consider having a look at the ongoing discussion there. Cs32en  18:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm probably not going to get directly involved in the subject of 9/11 Truth or CTs for the time being. If this probationary period works out, and if the collapse article can be improved relatively painlessly, then I may expand my interests. If so, the next step will be the controlled demolition article. But if I recall, we don't quite agree on where to take that one. Last I checked it needed (to my mind) to be cut back quite a bit. It's supposed to teach the controversy, not the theory.--Thomas B (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've actually just stated what I think would be an important aspect of the process of getting the article to GA. I fully understand that you wouldn't want to get involved in that discussion at this time, and we may just leave it to other editors to add their views there. I don't know when you have last looked at the CD article, so I can't say whether I agree or disagree on this one. The CT article had large parts that were both poorly sourced and poorly written, and much of that stuff has now been taken out or has been rewritten. For the CD article, I think there was less of that type of content. Cs32en  21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just read the CD article. It looks really, really good. I'd have to look much more closely at it to decide how it might be improved. Maybe in the new year.--Thomas B (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And I just read (parts of) the CT article. Also really good stuff.--Thomas B (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nanothermite Article
Do you know when the language I just removed from the Nanothermite article was added? I tried to page through previous edits, but can't see who added it, or when it was added.

Obviously, calling nanothermite a "fictional substance" (it clearly isn't, there are many published papers about how to make it) which is used to "hoodwink the public" has no place in a scientific article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.207.146 (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on keeping the the encyclopedia in good shape! The content had been added 44 minutes before you deleted it. A rather creative form of vandalism... Cs32en 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me with something?
Hey old friend, how are things going? I hope all is well for you. I was wondering if you could help me with something. Didn't you once file a request or something about a cabal? Could you tell me what you found when you researched this? You know, policies, guidelines, essays, where to file a complaint, etc. Don't worry, this is completely unrelated to 9/11. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, no need to respond at my talk page. I have yours in my watchlist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are probably looking for the Mediation Cabal. The links to all relevant guidelines related to the mediation process should be on this page. Regards.  Cs32en  05:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Alex Jones
Much improved description to Alex's views on his political orientation. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A rather subtle change in the grammatical structure, actually. In the previous version, it wasn't clear whether the apposition "not a right-winger" was info from Wikipedia about the term "libertarian", or whether it was part of an enumeration of items related to Jones' self-identification. Using the new version, we don't need to make a decision about whether libertarians, or a subset of them, are right-wingers or not, in this context. Thank you for your feedback! Cs32en  09:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing at Collapse of the World Trade Center
Please note that I am very close to being of the opinion that your continued participation at Collapse of the World Trade Center and its talk page is not helpful. Tendentiously arguing policy instead of calmly and respectfully working towards consensus is not the way to go, especially on controversial subjects. henrik • talk  11:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. Let me explain my viewpoint: Editors should work on articles according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Therefore, an important aspect of the discussion on how to improve an article is to reach a consensus on the correct interpretation of the policy and how it applies to the issue at hand. I am participating in such a discussion, and I am explaining my viewpoint. Could you show me where, in your view, my interpretation of policy was tendentious? I would be glad to explain why I interpreted the policy in the way that I did, or I would be able to identify and recognize a mistake, in case I had made one. Please note that I have not argued for expanding information related to alternative theories to article sections other that the section that summarizes (or that should summarize) briefly the content of the respective sub-article. I have opposed a proposal to eliminate that section.
 * As for the discussion related to the existence or non-existence of concrete in the WTC towers' core sections, I have added reliable sources (not all of them of exceptional reliability) to support my viewpoint. It would be helpful if more reliable sources would be presented to reach a well-founded conclusion on how to present the issue. (I'll look for some sources that independently corroborate NIST's viewpoint, and I'll also look more closely at what NIST actually says verbatim on the issue, in case no-one else does the sources-based work here.) My general view with regard to this issue is that the article should not highlight any discrepancies between various accounts of the collapse of the WTC towers, yet at the same time, it should neither gloss over existing discrepancies, and should not only refer to one reliable sources (i.e. NIST), if there is no agreement between various reliable sources on a particular point (assuming the point is important enough to be mentioned in the article).
 * Expressing one's viewpoint clearly is, in my opinion, an essential element in reaching any meaningful consensus. You may have a look at my contributions in other areas on Wikipedia to assess whether I am able to discuss calmly and respectfully with other editors. The atmosphere at Collapse of the World Trade Center and similar articles, is, unfortunately, not conducive to a friendly and respectful discussion. I may have been not as calm sometimes as I possibly could have been. At the same time, I think that, looking at the talk page comments from established editors, if there has been inflammatory rhetoric, it came from editors who would rather delete content related to alternative theories rather than from other editors. "Here we go again, those inclined to believe the impossible will argue to the end what portion of this article needs to discuss the preposterous." is one such phrase, from a recent comment on the article's talk page, which in no way helps to improve the article, and I sincerely hope that discussions on the editorial process at the Collapse of the World Trade Center article will focus on the editing process as a whole, not just on the edits of one editor or another.
 * I hope that I was able to explain to you how I see my own participation in the editing process on Collapse of the World Trade Center. Please let me know if you have further questions, or if you think that I should address a particular aspect that you have raised more thoroughly. Cs32en  12:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not say the interpretation of policy was tendentious, I said that the arguing of policy was tendentious. The debate consisted mainly of highly experienced users, who in all likelihood already understand the expression and intentions of the relevant policies in detail. In those cases, effectively forcing users to argue the details again does not help the discussion move forward and is a way of dissuading and wear down those who don't share your views. (Concrete case: )


 * In effect, you're contributing to setting up an adversarial atmosphere where you're arguing one side and forcing the other side to do likewise. What you (and everyone else) should be doing is to try to, to the best of your abilities, to edit and discuss the articles as a disinterested observer. Our articles are meant to reflect the current mainstream of opinion as seen by such a person, be it right or wrong. (I think the recent conduct of Thomas B has been in that spirit, no matter what his personal opinions are)


 * In the end, what matters is being able to constructively edit controversial topics. People with strong opinions who aren't able to view articles from the point of view of a hypothetical disinterested observer aren't suited for writing an encyclopedia article on that particular subject, it is in no way a reflection on their person. henrik  • talk  13:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply! I'll get back to you after Christmas. Happy holidays! Cs32en  13:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Happy holidays to you too! :) henrik  • talk  14:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope that we can clarify what your concerns are, and that I can adjust my editing accordingly. I admit, though, that I am still somewhat in the dark with regard to what the actual issues with my editing are.

Let me start with two statements that we probably agree on:

(1) Editors should not start discussions about issues that have already been settled by consensus unless new information emerges, relevant policies have changed, or other circumstances warrant the assumption that consensus might change as a result of a new discussion.

(2) Editors should discuss changes to policies and guidelines on WP namespace talk pages, not article talk pages.

With regard to the example ("concrete case") that you have mentioned, my view of the situation is as follows:

(1) I haven't started this discussion.

(2) If "acceptance as a fact by reliable sources", not notability, would be the criterion for the inclusion of information related to alternative theories about the WTC collapse, the section would not be in the article in the first place, as very few sources (two California non-corporate magazines, Russia Today television, probably some Iranian and Pakistani sources, all certainly not exceptional sources for exceptional claims) accept it as a possibility (none does accept is as a fact, as far as I can see). Yet, the section has been in the article for a long time. So either the issue (a) has not been discussed before, or (b) a discussion did not lead to a conclusion, or (c) the conclusion of such a discussion has not been implemented or (d) a previous discussion concluded that notability has to be taken into account when deciding on issues related to the content of the article. Whatever is the case, I have not re-started a discussion that has already been settled before.

(3) The discussion was about the interpretation of existing policy, not about changes to that policy. Everyone, including myself, took the text of the relevant policy pages (i.e. not any personal thought about what the policy should be) as the basis of their respective arguments.

Maybe I still do not see the particular way in which my arguing of policy is tendentious. I'll remove one comment on the talk page that questioned the motives of another editor. (I also hope this would encourage other editors to adapt their rhetoric accordingly.)

I really don't quite understand your view that I would be arguing "one side of the issue". For example, I've said that there are both sources that describe elements of concrete in the WTC core and other that do not. Other editors simply argue as if the sources that describe concrete element were simply not there, or that they were hoaxes or somehow unimportant. Likewise, I have not argued for including alternative viewpoints in every section in the article, but I have proposed to give a brief summary of the sub-article in the section that links to that article (this is the policy approach to sections that reference sub-articles, if I remember correctly). I can't see how this is arguing "one side". Cs32en 15:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for striking some parts of your comments on the talk page, that was helpful. As was your discussion of a proposed change, also a step in the right direction.


 * Out of curiosity, and if you have the time and inclination, would you be up to describing to me how you believe the hypothetical disinterested observer above would describe the controlled demolition hypothesis of the WTC? henrik  • talk  16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have copied the article World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories into my user space here. The lead section of that text shows how I would present the subject. (The main difficulties in the editing process are actually not so much related to the WTC controlled demolition article, but rather to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article and to the September 11 attacks article itself.) Cs32en  18:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User Names
Is wikipedia a democratic institution or a political correct autocratic one? BTW: I am in fact not an adherent of Pinochet. -- Pinochet-Fan (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an institution that does not promote offensive usernames. If you are not an adherent of Pinochet, then your username is both offensive and misleading. One more reason to change it. Cs32en  12:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, then how to change it? -- Pinochet-Fan (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know exactly how the process works. WP:RENAME should contain some information on how to change one's username. Cs32en  12:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Tantamount to election
True, the Republican Party, at least in most places, was not black dominated, and your edit is just fine with me.

If there's a point involved, it's that the Democratic Party was white dominated—a sine qua non for the one-party lockout, the insertion of runoff primaries in most southern states, and the general chemistry which gave birth to the phrase tantamount to election. The situation may seem strange now, but one of the first actions of Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, on ascending to the Presidency of the United States after years of Republican control of the White House, was to re-segregate federal buildings. Observe the reaction of Southern Democrats when Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, hosted Booker T. Washington for a meal at the White House.

Since then, the phrase tantamount to election has wiggled into the vocabulary at large and does not continue to be associated exclusively with the Democratic Party in the South or perhaps even exclusively with American politics. You are welcome to supply a perspective on how far the phrase has navigated.

I appreciate your close reading, obvious interest, and helpful editing with respect to the article on the phrase tantamount to election.

Rammer (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed the existence of the article because of your edit at Cynthia McKinney. The reason that led me to make the edit to Tantamount to election was that being "white-dominated" what not really what distinguished the Democratic Party at the time of place from the Republican Party of the time or from today's Democratic Party. Alternatively, just calling the party "racist" seemed to inject unneccessary value judgement into the text, and one could certainly argue that racisms isn't restricted to the Democratic Party of the time and place, either.
 * The characterization of the Democratic Party at the time is not essential to the understanding of the article, but it is useful for those readers who might assume that the Democratic Party always was "progressive" and therefore might be confused by the text, so I decided on inserting a link to the section of the relevant article that explains the context. If there is a short and suitable way to describe that context within the article Tantamount to election, I'd be fine with it. Cs32en  00:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Frage über die deutsche Wikipedia
Hallo CS32en,

ich kann mit meinem Benutzerkonto in der deutschen Wikipedia nicht aktiv sein, deswegen muss ich hier posten: Ich habe meinen Namen inzwischen geändert, kann mich aber immer noch nicht unter neuen Namen in der deutschen Wikipedia aktiv sein. Kannst du vielleicht mit dem Administrator Armin P. reden, mich zu entsperren? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anhänger der Aufklärung 2.0 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hallo Anhänger der Aufklärung,
 * ich kenne den Admin Armin P. nicht, evtl. kannst Du ihm eine E-Mail schicken. Falls Deine Sperre lediglich auf Deinen Usernamen zurück zu führen ist, wäre es m.E. nach ok, einfach per IP-Edit nachzufragen. Ich weiss nicht, wie das auf der deutschen Wiki gehandhabt wird und kann daher keine Sicherheit geben, dass Dir das nicht evtl. doch negativ ausgelegt werden könnte. Bin weder hier noch auf Wiki-de Administrator. Cs32en  04:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Zu ideologischen Übereinstimmungen: Es ist (statistisch) auch nicht ungewöhnlich, dass zwei Menschen, die sich noch nie begegnet sind, ähnliche Ansichter über die Dinge in der Welt haben können. ;) (Als Anwort auf deine Bemerkung, ich hätte ähnliche Ansichten wie die Site mit der "Aufklärung 2.0") -- Anhänger der Aufklärung 2.0 (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wollte nur erläutern, weshalb ich ich die Möglichkeit angesprochen habe, dass Dein Benutzername etwas mit der Seite zu tun hat. Für die Bewertung des Benutzernamens ist zudem auch wichtig, ob er als Werbung für eine bestimmte Sache ausgelegt werden kann, ganz unabhängig davon, ob die Werbung beabsichtigt ist oder nicht. Da sowohl im Namen der Website wie in Deinem Benutzernamen der Begriff "Aufklärung" vorkommt, sind aus dieser Sicht ohnehin mögliche Ähnlichkeiten ja nicht überraschend. Cs32en  08:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ein Name wie "Jesusfreund" wäre dann Werbung für Jesus und so weiter...unvermeidlich, dass oftmals gilt: nomen est omen. -- Anhänger der Aufklärung 2.0 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Irgendwie bin ich jetzt von der deutschen Wikipedia für alle Ewigkeit gesperrt, trotz Umbenennung. Es gibt ja den sogenannten "Autoblock".... -- Anhänger der Aufklärung 2.0 (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Versteh ich nicht ganz. Gibt es keine Möglichkeit, den Leuten dort eine E-Mail zu schreiben, oder erhältst Du keine Antwort? Cs32en  08:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "14:13, 29. Dez. 2009 PaterMcFly (Diskussion | Beiträge) sperrte „Anhänger der Aufklärung 2.0 (Diskussion | Beiträge)“ für den Zeitraum: Unbeschränkt (Erstellung von Benutzerkonten gesperrt, darf eigene Diskussionsseite nicht bearbeiten) ‎ (Sperrumgehung, keine Besserung erkennbar)" Schau dir das an: von Namensänderung haben die wohl noch nie gehört. Das sind doch nur alles Arschlöcher dort. Anders kann man die nicht mehr nennen. -- Anhänger der Aufklärung 2.0 (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ich möchte mal behaupten, die Verantwortlichen öffentlich als "Arschlöcher" zu titulieren, tut Deiner Sache wenig gutes. Du solltest es auch nicht persönlich nehmen, Du warst wahrscheinlich der x-te User mit inakzeptablem Usernamen, in Anbetracht der Massen von Spam- und Fakeusern ist es von Namen her schwer, zu differenzieren. Versuche doch, einen anonymen Kommentar auf der Nutzerdiskussionsseite unterzubringen, der, so das überhaupt möglich ist, den Benutzernamen/die Situation erklärt. 78.54.223.247 (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Habe halt (zugegeben unvorsichtigerweise Dampf abgelassen. Naja, ich verzichte dann mal für einige Zeit auf die deutsche Wikipedia. Dann wird weiter geschaut. -- Anhänger der Aufklärung 2.0 (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Jetzt hat sich alles geklärt und nehme auch die rustikale Sprache zurück. War halt stocksauer. -- Anhänger der Aufklärung 2.0 (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)