User talk:Xiutwel/archive

=archive - do not edit - pls talk on talk =

Cathy O'Brien
You are correct. I removed that part about the program's termination date to keep it consistent. CrypticBacon 01:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Apollo moon landing hoax accusations
Sources must be cited and verifiable; see Reliable sources, Verifiability, and Citing sources. One tip-off that citations are inadequete is a phrase like "it is conjectured;" It's necessary to say who conjectures. Like, "John Smith, leader of the metahoax busters, wrote in an article in Time magazine on April 2 2004 that..." Beyond that, the material also has to be notable and relevant. Tom Harrison Talk 13:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing
The same guidelines that Tom cited above, Reliable sources, Verifiability, and Citing sources, also apply in this case. What local news station (and approximately when?) reported "BATF officials defusing, after the bombing, two additional explosive devices"? People need to be able to verify this, such as through viewing a videotape of the broadcast or a transcript from the television station. -Kmf164 ( talk | contribs ) 01:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Tom Harrison Talk 12:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's on my watch list, so I'm automatically informed when there is a change. Tom Harrison Talk 14:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Image removal
I'm not sure what nl's image use policy is (if you'd like to point me to a policy page in English, that'd be awesome), but the English wikipedia is one of the few that allows fair use images to be used. Thus, many images may be uploaded to the English wikipedia and used here, but may not be used on other wikipedias, and may not be uploaded to Commons. If you want to use the image, you have two options&mdash;upload to commons and upload to nl. It's against commons policy to upload it there, so your only option is to upload it to nl. But if nl doesn't permit fair use, then it's not permitted there either, and an image with a free license should be used instead. Hope this clarifies things. --Spangineer (háblame)  01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Prez
It's usually better not to link to things not directly related to the article (see Only make links that are relevant to the context). None of them went where they were supposed to; President and vice president just go to the articles about the generic use of the term, rather than President of the United States, etc. Cheney did not go to Dick Cheney, and he had already been linked to previously in the article anyway. Hope that helps!--Cúchullain t/ c 18:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

911

 * were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks overwhelmingly targeting civilians upon the United States carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

Though correct, I think the sentence is less beautiful with your addition. It makes the sentence a bit hard to read. Also, I think "overwhelmingly" has a kind of emotional flavour, which may not be appropriate. Thirdly, the Pentagon and the supposed White House target are not civilian targets, even though civilians died as "collateral damage". Finally, it gives me the impression that it is less evil to kill a soldier during peace-time then it is to kill a civilian, it makes the military deaths sound insignificant, a bit un-respectful. (I'm sure you meant no disrespect!) These were the things that struck me when reading your change, but I leave it upto you whether to make any changes. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The main reason I used "overwhelmingly" was because the attacks on the Pentagon did target the military, albiet using civilian planes as missiles. Kingal86 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ik dacht al dat je nederlands was, Xiutwel. groeten Sacca 14:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Reverting
Thank you for pointing that out. I didn't see it was a direct quote. Regardless, I added a Citation due to, as you said, "bad word choice" or, in this case, a direct quote uncredited. Galactor213 19:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

TerrorStorm
What you found in the cache is an old version of the AfD debate, which was closed as "keep" (it's dated 12 August 2006). The article was then re-nominated for deletion, and was deleted by me (see Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 8) following consensus and discounting some single-purpose-account votes and other which were not justified by policies. If you need part of the content, please tell me and I'll restore the part you need into your talk page so you can copy the code. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't undelete an article just because somebody needs it as a signpost, or because they believe it's notable regardless of consensus. If you really want that content to be online, I can get it for you and you can put it up in any number of free web space providers. I'm sorry you missed the AfD debate, but you can see that the "delete" vote was in the majority anyway. I would direct you to Deletion review, but it specifically states: This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning. Please read the policies and guidelines referenced in the AfD debate to understand what happened, and this notice I placed at the top of my talk page (which you may have missed). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've placed a copy of the last version of the article at User talk:Xiutwel/TerrorStorm, without the AfD tag, leaving the categories visible but not in effect, and followed by a copy of the revision history, where you can see who contributed and when. This is only for your own reference. It should not be used to recreate the article, and it should not stay there for long, so please make a copy of it outside Wikipedia. I sincerely consider that having the deletion reviewed is not right; the August one merely failed to gather enough voters and consensus, and you're not mentioning any reasons for undeletion. If you do have something to say that is different from what the "keep" people already said, of course, by all means go on with it. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not "forbidden" to write any article, but if an article has been recently deleted and you re-create it identically or in more-or-less its previous form, it will be speedily deleted. Re-creating a deleted article like this is also a rude challenge to the decission to delete that was reached by consensus. In this case, since the reason was non-notability, the article could be recreated if the film gained enough notability.


 * I detect a note of sarcasm in your reply... "I guess not so many editors would have voted if the article was on the East-Peruvian black-eyed lizard being rescued by daring tourists — which would be even more unnotable. Could it be editors are afraid to be associated with Alex Jones, just because there are articles on him or his work on wikipedia? I think this would be a defeat for wikipedia." I doubt Alex Jones is considered so badly that any editors are afraid of being associated with him, especially when some editors in Wikipedia boldly set out every day to defend Hitler or the Spanish Inquisition. I for one don't know Alex Jones, and I'd suggest you take a step back and see the issue from a larger perspective. Wikipedia is not a signpost or a forum for denunciation of conspiracies, or for promotion of works. It doesn't matter if it's true; it has to be important, notable and independently verifiable.


 * If you want to see what kind of articles are being created and deleted, check the New pages page and the AfD debates. Many non-notable people and things get articles and many of those are deleted very quickly. Some get through the "filter", but that's an inherent failure of a system that requires constant attention from people who are not paid to do it and who have other things to do in real life. If X is non-notable and still has an article, that's not an excuse to make an article for non-notable Y. These films, these people, these groups in particular have had a lot of articles created for them, even if only a handful can be considered notable. These articles are created and expanded by a handful of editors who tend to be prolific and set the notability bar just a tad too low. So maybe it's true that Alex Jones' works attract many negative voters.


 * I don't know if you're familiar with the AfD process, but in any case, remember that the opinions are not "votes"; the admin who has to decide what to do must check that the "votes" are justified. S/he doesn't simply count "keeps" and "deletes", but has to read the justifications and discard the opinions that aren't backed up by policies and guidelines. When I closed the debate on TerrorStorm, I ignored several of the "keeps" for this reason. The first debate didn't attract many voters and should've been closed as "no consensus", not as "keep" (the result would've been the same of course, but the distinction is important). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Christian Faith...
See User:Xiutwel/Temp. Let me know as soon as you have copied the text. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Crossing_the_Rubicon_%28Ruppert%29
Hi: here are a couple others I'd like to see undeleted: Are you aware of this page where deletes are listed? Kaimiddleton 03:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Crossing_the_Rubicon_%28Ruppert%29
 * Articles_for_deletion/Christian_Faith_and_the_Truth_Behind_9/11
 * Articles_for_deletion/9/11_Synthetic_Terror
 * User:GabrielF/911TMCruft

Crossing the Rubicon (Ruppert)
Sure. You can find them at User:Xiutwel/Crossing the Rubicon (Ruppert) and User:Xiutwel/Crossing the Rubicon (Ruppert)/hist. Regards,  Sango 123  15:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this description page could use a lot of work. I have only scanned the book so it might be smart to make a longer writeup. Kaimiddleton 23:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Snowball Earth
I read the front of your user page about being a physicist interest in fringe ideas. I've been reading Snowball Earth: The Story of a Maverick Scientist and His Theory of the Global Catastrophe That Spawned Life As We Know It by Gabrielle Walker. (amazon.com link) One part of the story centers on Caltech professor Joe Kirschvink (see for instance Snowball_Earth) and I thought you might enjoy this quote from the book (page 83, 84 of the hardback edition): Joe is a professor at the California Institute of Technology, an august institution that lies among the villas of Pasadena in southern California. Caltech professors are hard-nosed folks. It's one of the most fiercely competitive academic establishments in the world, filled with some of the most gifted scientists. They work long hours, know how to sell themselves, guard their patches jealously and make sure they stay ahead. You don't often come across a Caltech professor like Joe, who constantly describes his own ideas as "nutty," and invites you to call him a nut. "Honestly," he says. "I don't mind." In truth, Joe Kirschvink is one of Caltech's most brilliant brains. His strength lies in his ability to look at old problems in a new way. He delights in topics that other scientists shun, ones that have a whiff of the weird about them. Joe often does his work away from the scientific spotlight, but he tends to make the kind of discovery that swings the spotlight over to him. And then he moves on to something else. His motto could be "never dismiss, never assume." In his introductory geology class, he has each student write a "nut" paper, in which they have to consider an ofbeat hypothesis, ideally one that has been ridiculed by the scientific establishment, and then describe how they would rigorously test the idea. His students love it. Kaimiddleton 23:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: 911Cruft?
Hi Xiutwel,

There really isn't a great place for you to comment on the 911 conspiracy AfDs because although they are all related, the discussions are separate for each of them. However, I've come up with a few options if you want to put something on the record. You could try posting a message on the Village Pump, you could try going through the Dispute Resolution process, although I personally think that this step is a bit extreme. You can also comment on the AfDs that are still open.

I'd like to point out that wikipedia functions by consensus and in every single case (23 by my count) where consensus was reached on an AfD nomination the consensus was to delete or either delete the article or to merge and redirect. Please understand that these articles were not deleted because they were poorly written or unsourced but because they dealt with non-notable topics, such as books that are in a total of 10 libraries, movies that have generated no press coverage, people whose only claim to notability is that they helped produce movies that generated no press coverage, etc. I can appreciate from your message that you have a clear vision of what wikipedia should be, but I hope you understand that your vision doesn't really conform to WP:NOT, which is the official policy that describes what wikipedia is and isn't. For example, wikipedia isn't an indescriminate collection of information. Also, please note that wikipedia is not a soapbox. When someone creates an article about a completely non-notable book it has the effect of promoting that book and that is contrary to our mission.

Please note I've copied this comment to my talk page so I can better keep track of the conversation. GabrielF 22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review process
I'm moving what I wrote here (did you know that the "talk" link in your signature doesn't point to your talk page?).

As per WP:DRV, you should go here and follow the instructions ("Follow this link to add a new deletion review entry in today's log."). Ignore the last part, since you've already let me know about it.

I really don't know what else to tell you; I've never conducted a DRV myself, and only once was I prompted to participate in one. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Xiutwel/9-11:_The_Road_to_Tyranny
Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Hello. I moved the page along with the evolution of edits history. It should be there as normal. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Hello, Xiutwel. Thanks for helping the DRV process for 9-11: The Road to Tyranny by hosting this page and letting people know about it. Having looked at the article again, I'm afraid I still don't see the film as notable enough to have its own article. On the other hand, the page has some details about what Alex Jones believes which are not in the Alex Jones article at present; perhaps someone should add those details to the Alex Jones article? Cheers, CWC (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC) who also tried to tidy up the heading of this section.

Bro, considering that i created and have spent much time on User:Xiutwel/9-11: The Road to Tyranny, as is evident form its history, i wonder if it could be userfied under my userspace, and you having a copy of the latest version? Peace. --Striver 16:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Jones films
I took another look at it... the problem with the Jones films (all, as far as I can tell) is that even relative to other things surrounding all the 9/11 periphery they simply as stand alone films don't get enough press credence from RS to give them legs to stand on as individual articles. Similar to the different articles on his websites that were all deleted--having them on page that listed them all with a paragraph or two may have been better. Whilst I disagree that it shouldn't be userfied for development purposes, it probably cannot stay there forever, but a "reasonable" amount of time is likely your decision. Perhaps a better solution for the myriad Jones films would be a summar page for all of them, with a paragraph or two on each? Alex Jones 9/11 related films, maybe? · XP  · 14:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I support this position. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It does seem more logical rather than fighting it out over the individual ones endlessly, and expansion as Jones is if nothing else prolific easy: add section, 1-3 paragraphs, add redirect, done. The incidental press each one gets combined will make the combined article bulletproof for AfD, and that would be that. · XP  · 16:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Alex Jones image
The image of Jones and Sheen in User:Xiutwel/9-11:_The_Road_to_Tyranny is a violation of copyright, as it's a fair use image and therefore can only exist on an article about Sheen or Jones. It would be a copyvio even if this article was not in your User space. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's still there, under the heading "Impact". User:Zoe|(talk) 22:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Kewl. Thanks. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

wikify
Thank you. --Striver 18:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

re: fbi
Hi there, just back from wikibreak myself… I've supported your request for valid change/addition to the article since you presented it, and will continue to do so… hope you rest well, and thanks for the invite to the discussion… Lovelight 15:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:goodbye-clowns
Category:goodbye-clowns Could any wikipedia-editor please point me to a page where it is explained what this is all about? Thanks, &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

copyself
Rosicrucian, I thank you for all your positive contributions to Wikipedia talk:911 POV disputes. They are valuable to me. I intend to pick up Wikipedia after January 8. Got any suggestions on how to proceed with this? Some thoughts I have: What would be a good title? 911-related? controversial-articles-related? &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * compare proposed interpretations with current adopted policy
 * try and reach consensus on:
 * interpretations?
 * new guidelines?
 * amendments to existing guidelines?

Care to explain this edit
Where you added a nonexistant category to your talkpage?--MONGO 13:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Two topics above this one, I am asking the question: what is (was) this category for? Perhaps you can help, I remember you being mentioned in the "Village pump" post that mentioned the category? &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Xiu. User:Cplot was an editor who believed in alternate 9/11 theories. He was a very good writer, but not very good about following WP in regards to 3RR, NPA and Civil. When he got blocked for 3RR (?) he started creating sock puppets and alleging that the pro Bush editors were editing under direction of the US Gov. He based these claims on the fact that Mongo used to work for the Dept of Homeland Security, the admissions by the DOD that they had paid bloggers, Pentagon_rapid_response_operation and an article on an anti-wiki site documenting the edits to an article of some woman connected to the Bush family. He created 2 nonexistant categories which he added to supsect articles. Since his banning, he has been a tireless disruptive sockpuppet. Did you read my suggestion for the OKC bombing article on Mongo's talk page? What do you think? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Xiu and FAAFA. There's a few corrections I need to make about FAAFA's remarks above. First, you're right about Cplot being a very good writer. However, you're wrong about Cplot having problems with Wikipedia Policies. I challenge you to find an instance of Cplot being uncivil or attacking anyone personally. Cplot's contribution history is there for anyone to examine. I'm not talking about us Cplot sockpuppets. We can be ornery bastards. I'm talking about Cplot. If you'll look you'll find that Cplot was blocked by federal authorities engaging in Wikilawyring. Second, the evidence that Cplot and the Cplot sockpuppets used to come to the conclusions is not the evidence you cited above. Cplot and the Cplot sockpuppets were given photocopies of payroll stubs for the federal employees with handwritten notes indicating which Wikipedia account those correspond to. We were also given budget documents. To much information has been obscured to link this to any particular government agency. We're still trying to figure that out. So while the evidence you cite is interesting it has nothing to do with the Cplot sockpuppets (or Cplot for that matter). Thirdly, Cplot was never banned. Cplot was mistakenly blocked by MONGO who was later stripped of his administrative powers (largely for his uncivil behavior towards Cplot and the mistaken blocking). You won't find any discussion of a ban of Cplot on Wikipedia. That's been fabricated by the feds. I hope this clears things up a bit. There's so much more I could say, but it will all come out in due time. Finally, the templates have different uses. is to indicate an article or talk page is or is suspected of being controlled by United States executive branch agents (controlled article).   is to place on your own talk page to show your disgust with federal authorities propagandizing on Wikipedia and to show you support the organizations permanent ban from the project..  Thanks for creating a buzz about us though. --AnAppleADay 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

what does We can ornery bastards mean? And I would sure like to see the photocopies you mention. You are welcome to upload them on http://talk2000.nl for instance. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I corrected some typos above. That should answer your first question. As for the photocopies, that may take some time. The person I got those from apparently broke the law just by making the photocopies (let alone sharing them with others). It took a long time to build the trust before I got we got a hold of them. We're working with some journalists we know to figure out how best to run this whole story (and when best to run it). From what I've learned these clowns also like to pretend to be opposed to one another (to create the appearance that dissenters are not simply blocked for dissenting). It's hard to believe that this goes on in America, but there you have it. Anyway, we'll be watching your activities on the wiki and see if you fit the profile for someone we could trust (though this may hit the newspapers before that happens). Either way you'll get to see the evidence. BTW, you can just post your questions on your own talk page. The socks are pretty much costless. We cannot be blocked.. -- (Cplot socks) ANewDayDawning 06:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, one way to build trust would be to keep the category on your page. Remember it's supposed to stay red. --ANewDayDawning 06:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

cat
Category:Good-bye clowns

reply
Dear Cplot socks,

I don't think any wikipedia editor would welcome paid operatives from any affiliation to mess with wikipedia. However, I think it is inevitable that this would occur: it's too easy and too lucrative. I therefore think it is utterly impossible to expose all "clowns" as you call them, just as it appears that (new) Cplot socks are not banned. I sympathize with your struggle for justice, but personally I think the only thing which will counter "clowns" is the quality of the guidelines and the quality of the bonafide users using these guidelines.

I will leave the category on this page for a while, to see if others would join it - but it seems not be used. I do not seek your trust and am happy to wait till after the story "hits the press". Disclaimer: I want to stress that I do *not* endorse any accusation against any single user or moderator. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Oklahoma City dispute
Thankyou!

As for your Oklahoma City dispute, I just had a look at the talk:Oklahoma City bombing and I got a little confused because you are involved more than one dispute there :P If you could very briefly summarise the dispute you are talking about I'll take another look. Unfortunately I can't promise to do it in the next couple of weeks because of life :) Ireneshusband 05:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Oklahoma
Sorry to hear you have a life! ;) Luckily for you, it took me two weeks to reply. The current status is: (And no doubt then we might have another dispute.) take so much editor's time and dispute warring, however. Cheers, &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * newly, sources have been claimed that the bomb scares were in error. I have not looked at these sources yet.
 * If I find these sources reliable, I would welcome a paragraph describing the bomb scares as erroneous.
 * However, given the other circumstances I would not be surprised when the sources turn out not to be reliable enough to eliminate all doubt.
 * Currently, I agree with the removal of the dispute flags until I (or others) have found time to look at the issue.
 * I feel it is rather tragic that simple diffences of opinion should

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pearl harbor attack.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pearl harbor attack.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives Wikipedia where neutral fact is disrespect and China is unfairly portray
you have ask about alternative to Wikipedia for the liar: it is call encyclopedia dramatica I do not approve of website, it very disrespectWen Hsing 02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not certain what you are saying: do you approve or disapprove of my proposal? &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Bashar (channelled entity)
I have added a "" template to the article Bashar (channelled entity), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.133.5.196 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I checked the log, the article was deleted in a speedy process so there was no discussion. The problem is that, considering the topic, there were no references (a google video doesn't count) so one can not verify the claims or see, why it is important. So, if you are planning to rewrite the article, consider these points. Regards. --Tone 07:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

source code
Bashar is allegedly the name of a subgroup of a future telepathic civilisation which "enjoys" to communicate with humanity. Allegedly, individually they do neither need or have names. Bashar is channeled by, amongst others, medium Daryll Anka. The sessions typically deal with the nature of the universe: belief systems, emotions and actions, together creating the physical reality, which can be compared to a mirror image of the vibrations individuals send out.

The Granada Forum
Since you asked about it on its talk page, this article is already in dispute in being "speedily deleted". See Talk:The Granada Forum for more info and to voice your opinion. Thanks. -Eep² 20:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Cathy O'Brien nominated for deletion (again)
Hi again. Since you contributed to this article, I thought you might want to also contribute to its second nomination. Thanks. -Eep² 05:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 911.jpg
Hello, Xiutwel. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 911.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Xiutwel/Temp. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

=june-dec 2007=

TerrorStorm
You'll need to start a discussion at WP:DRV, as talk pages of de;eted article will not get any attention. The text you posted was:

Dear Fellow Editors,

I would like to propose that we now restore the page, since the film has been shown on video google 1.027.655 times (1500 views a day). I believe that makes it notable enough to be included on wikipedia. Old content:
 * http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230
 * http://www.talk2000.nl/mediawiki/index.php/TerrorStorm

Good luck. --Steve (Stephen)talk 22:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1.061.411 21:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Mailer_diablo/A
Why did you delete the comment I left? Bassgoonist 04:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow...
I just completely misread his talk page...sorry about that. With at least 2 people flying off the handle with accusations about my intentions, I jumped to conclusions...sorry. Bassgoonist 12:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:911 POV disputes
I have restored the discussion page. But you need to move it to userspace. The essay was deleted as a result of an MFD. If you want that restored, you have have to request at DRV. --soum talk 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks

 * Regarding the message on my talk page about the Norm Mineta testimony: the version you propose wouldn't be notable enough to include in the article, IMO. There is in fact a controversy about Mineta's testimony, I think mainly because it is somewhat ambiguous and raises concerns about Cheney's role. --MaplePorter 14:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked it up and the list is interesting. Many are listed here: http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html. Hope it helps if you dont already have it. Wayne 16:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw your post: "How many structural engineers I can name is not relevant;"

conspiracy views and such
Thanks for your kind comment. bout the issue you raise ... i do not have anything constructive to say. While I generally support Wikipedia (I am still around after all) and believe the things I wrote in that essay, and even use Wikipedia myself, its flaws are legion and well-known, and even the most ardent fans of Wikipedia have to acknowledge that it is far from perfect in many ways. My general advice for anyone feeling down: triple-check to make sure you are complying with NPOV, NOR and V, and if you are absolutely certain you are, stick to your guns. But also do assume good faith - Wikipedia is not going to provide every point of view that exists, there need to be standards of relevance and significance. I am not sure these can be codified, I think they have to be negotiated by editors working on a particular article. Try to negotiate. If you still feel frustrated, there is always mediation. I've been around a long time and still don't see any better solution than this, even if it is often inadequate. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For undue weight some people use the google test (how many responses do you get when you put that name or phrase in google, compared to another minority view included in the article)? I would also suggest a lexus/nexus search - the more it has been written about in newspapers, the more notable it is. The problem is this: the WWW makes it possible for anyone with a certain amount of money - a lot if you live in rural Bolivia, but trivial if you live in the US or Europe - to post ANYTHING. New technologies make it easy for people to make videos and post them on the web, too. Therefore, it is unreasonable to make existence on the web in and of itself an acceptable criteria for inclusion. There has to be some standard for notability. Ask other editors ative on the page, including people you are in conflict with, what their standard for notability is. Assume good faith and assume they have good reasons, and ask them to assume good faith on your part, and try to have an open discussion about where to draw the line for reasonably notable versus too trivial to include. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My deletion
It was rambling that we've seen before and has nothing to do with the article. Also the person blanked the article and I figured not by accident. --Golbez 12:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't delete it again. --Golbez 12:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist
It took three or four sessions, but I finally magnaged to watch the whole film on Google video (so deduct 3 from the viewership total ;-) The three sections do not seem to have a lot in common. I suggest you also go through the discussion at the James Randi Educational Foundation where they discuss the film. It appears to borrow heavily from earlier 9/11 conspiracy movies,(like Loose Change) and repeats a lot of untruths and half truths, as well as saying some things which are supported or at least not disproved by the poor investigation the government did of 9/11. In other words, it may be wrong in the details about 9/11 and tinfoil hat conspiracies, but right in the larger issue of the event being used by right wing politicians to get money handed over to their defense contractor supporters, to get reelected by brainwashing and frightening the populace with color coded warnings, and by curtailing civil liberties, and by establishing a permanent state of war with a shadowy enemy who cannot ever be made to surrender. I feel that when there is a high enough degree of incompetence, it can look like a conspiracy (Pearl Harbor, 9/11). With the idea that the planes were supposed to crash into buildings, but somehow it also took explosives in the buildings to bring them down, I've wondered what happened to the fourth building (the target for the Shanksville plane. Did workers come in the next day and remove explosives? In the Towers, what did the office workers think about supposed workmen coming in and cutting building columns, and knocking plaster off colums to install charges? I would have commented on it if it had happened in a building where I worked! In the attack on the Christian and Jewish religions (carefully avoiding Islam) some of the stuff about similarities with earlier religions has long been part of comparative religion, and many previous writers have suggested an influence of Buddhism on Christianity. Then it has a lot of pure bullcrap, like saying look how much "Sun" sounds like "son" when neither word was part of the Hebrew or Aramaic languages; their roots are in Indo-European. It also is exposed at JREF for misquoting what early religious texts said and for making up similarities between a number of religions and the Jesus story. I am very doubtful of astronomical claims that the Southern Cross was visible in the holy land and that the 3 stars in Orion were called the "three kings"(by whom?) and that the sun stops its zodiacal movement for 3 days at Easter or whatever, but I will leave it to astronomers to check that. The diatribe about how there is no law requiring people in the US to pay income taxes is balderdash, and the JREF cites the relevant federal laws. But the stuff about Prescott Bush and the Nazi banking is pretty well established. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, to reveal that the film was a product of the Larouchies or Scientology or some such, but no tie to any particular group was revealed. Their website is also pretty vague as to who paid for the great editing job (parts were really well done, like the music and video of violence montage at the beginning, and the use of colorized silent movies of Biblical scenes for comic effect.) Before it possibly gets deleted, I suggest you save a copy of the Wikipedia article on your hard drive, or perhaps save both a copy as it appears and a copy of the source text from edit mode, to make it all the easier to re-create if it gets multiple coverage in reliable publications. Regards. Edison 15:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the draconian rules for "notability". I have a hard time believing these delete happy wikipedians are acting in good faith. I try to assume, but when they block every movie not made by Ted Turner that talks about things in a way that is outside the official story (yes I'm using hyperbole here) it becomes hard to accept... oh well. Thanks for fighting the good fight. Moonbug 16:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Image smilies
Hi, I noticed your threads at the Village Pump were always ending with Image:Smile-tpvgames.gif. Possibly you even have it embedded in your signature? Please see WP:SIG for the reasoning behind not using such images on talkpages, especially within signatures. (Essentially, they're distracting and annoying to other editors – Imagine how messy the pages would be if everyone used them!) Much thanks. :) --Quiddity 17:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist
I didn't see any text from you that wasn't posted on the deleting admin's talk page? The best place for further discussion would be WP:DRV if you haven't started this already. DRV will establish whether the AfD close was handled correctly. --Steve (Stephen)talk 00:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikistress meter
Yeah, sad thing about Lucky 6.9. He quit maybe half a dozen times, but this time it really does seem like he's quit. As for the meter, simply use the images Image:Wikistress1.png through Image:Wikistress4.png. --Golbez 15:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

9/11 suggestion
Hi, I would be happy to help you with a macroscopic overview for the 9/11 conspiracies page. It won't be easy but I believe it's needed. Are you going to start a user sub-page for it? Corleonebrother 22:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but not yet, feel free to do so yourself. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have improved my 9/11 opinion polls page and (in the spirit of WP:BOLD) I will be creating a new page for it soon. Would you have a look at it before I do so to see if you can improve it anywhere? Thanks, Corleonebrother 22:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:DATE and commas
You are right that we DO include a comma when the day is after the month and the year is also specified (this is standard format for American-style dates). However, the examples that you edited were to illustrate that no comma should be used when there is a month and year, but no day of the month. Your point (about the comma after month and day) is already covered in a later section, "Autoformatting and linking". Happy editing! Chris the speller 00:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation on September 11, 2001 attacks
You appear to have done 5 reverts in this article today, please stop. I don't want to see you blocked ;-)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.  Mel sa  ran  14:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why science does not include the supernatural
Including the supernatural in science will destroy science. Suppose you have some physics homework to do. You know the answer from the back of the book. You need 20 steps to get to the answer. You can only get the first 3 steps. Then you write "The remaining 17 steps are a miracle and I dont need to do them so there". And then you complain when the teacher gives you a bad grade for not doing your homework. And complaining when the other student who does all 20 steps gets a better grade. Understand?--Filll 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Consider the following scenario
Now how would lawyers feel if the following were pushed by the public and by members of some small eccentric religious sect:
 * All criminals that had not been seen committing a crime by the jury had to be released immediately. DNA evidence was ruled inadmissable, and confessions, and fingerprint evidence, and circumstantial evidence and eyewitness accounts were all thrown out. Unless the jury sees the crime for themselves, there is no proof it did not happen, so we have to just assume the opposite.
 * Any criminal defendent is allowed to use miracles as part of his defense. So if my neighbor saw me killing the postman and burying him in the backyard, I can claim that he did not see me, he saw a vision, or that I was miraculously in Cleveland on the day of the murder, even though I have no evidence to support me being in Cleveland and in fact there are 30 pieces of evidence that I was home in Rochester instead.
 * Questioning a "miracle" defense, or questioning the discarding of DNA evidence or fingerprint evidence will cause the judge, jury or lawyers to be condemned and cursed roundly, and told by the general public that they are damned and will burn in hell forever for questioning the word of God himself-They are in fact, defaming God almighty by questioning the miracle defense or introducing evidence from the past which no one saw.
 * There were rumblings about changing the laws to require the introduction of the miracle defense, and the discarding of all past evidence. Anyone who disagrees with these principles is automatically suspect. Politicians opposed to the miracle defense and discarding of past evidence will be voted out of office. Judges opposed will be impeached and removed from the bench.
 * Lawyers and judges who disagree will be viewed as nonbelievers and atheists and blasphemers for doubting the word of God himself
 * The expertise of lawyers and judges will be called into question since it is irrelevant-they are all atheists anyway, so who can trust them?--Filll 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

re
Is there no way in between? There are many things which are hard for science to explain: Also, there are many things of which science knows it is unaware: By definition, the supernatural is not at the same time science. But anything which was once labeled supernatural, like telepathy, can be science the moment we know how it works or even prove that it exists. It should then no longer be labeled supernatural, ofcourse. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * people not eating for six months and living healthily
 * telepathy
 * prediction of the future
 * out of body experience in which people see stray items on top of the hospital roof (how did they know they were there?)
 * new particles keep being discovered
 * new functions and processes of DNA are discovered


 * If there is any evidence for something, then it can enter the realm of science. Unfortunately, all the examples you mentioned do not have good scientific evidence behind them. And that includes intelligent design. Once there is evidence, then it might start to be considered science, if it passes the other criteria which exist for things to be science (see the demarcation problem for instance, or Daubert standard for some examples). Until then, it is not in the realm of science. Just like the other things you mentioned.--Filll 17:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am no expert on these matters, but I believe thousands upon thousands of events have been described by scientists. There is a remote chance that it is just a giant hoax, but that doesn't seem the most likely option to me, especially since I've had a few minor telepathic experiences myself. So I contend there is good scientific evidence, but the scientific community is afraid to look at it. (History has shown that looking at it damages your reputation and career.) &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been looked at. For literally centuries. And no evidence has ever EVER been found. So of course, to work on it would damage your career. It is a waste of scarce resources chasing somethig that we have no evidence for. Fair enough?--18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I could not disagree more. And I meant, work on it in your own time, it makes sense you cannot work on it if you are not being paid to work on it. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to develop a scientific case for it with your own resources and time, feel free. Then present your ideas to the scientific community and try to gain acceptance for them. If you convince them, then you will have succeeded. I, for one, will employ my talents elsewhere. Thanks anyway.--Filll 18:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on Afd.
Please see Articles_for_deletion/NCSE_Grand_Canyon_Raft_Trip and the associated article NCSE Grand Canyon Raft Trip. Happy Couple 21:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Marquart (Mark) Ewing Phillips
A template has been added to the article Marquart (Mark) Ewing Phillips, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Oo7565 19:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: pls userfy / Ted Gunderson
Hi, could you please userfy or mail to me: including the page history.
 * Ted Gunderson

Thx, &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Xiutwel/Ted Gunderson - done. I will look at the article history to send to you as well. (aeropagitica) 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware that you had already requested userfication of the article, so I put in my own request on DRV a week ago. I just rewrote and recreated the article today. If you'd like to pitch in, there's still plenty of work that could be done on the article! --WacoKid 21:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing
Hi, I noticed that you've been trying to keep the "alternative" points of view represented in the Oklahoma City bombing article. I added the following to the Conspiracy theories section, but it was removed without explanation. I returned it, but I'd beginning to suspect that I'd probably profit from your help and advice vis-à-vis such conflict situations. Vesku 22:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists say there are several discrepancies, such as a retired U.S. explosives expert, Brigadier General Benton K. Partin, stating that the size of the blast was not consistent with the bomb used by McVeigh.[84] Some critics of the official explanation point to a blast effects study published in 1997 by the Eglin Air Force Base, which concluded that the damage to the Murrah building was "not the result of the truck bomb itself, but rather due to other factors such as locally placed charges within the building itself".[85]

Phi and semitones
Hello Xiutwel,

Thanks for the comments left on my talk page, regarding my attempted contribution of the relationship between Phi and the ET semitone. Yes, your expression is correct. (Phi^3)/4 almost equals an ET semitone (rounded, it is 0.992721 of one ET semitone).

First, I am a musician by profession...not a mathematician. However I came across the coincidence while studying patterns in the Fibonacci number series. Since each third number is an even number, I wanted to establish a ratio between two adjacent even numbers in the series, and found it to be almost identical to the ratio of 25 semitones. The so-called "Phi semitone" is (rounded) 0.992721, where 1.0 represents an ET semitone (12th root of 2).

I could understand another editor referring to my contribution as "numerology" if I were claiming that the "golden ratio" is, in fact, the basis of equal temperament! But I am making no such claim...I am not even inferring that the Phi semitone be used in musical compositions (although I have used it successfully in some of my own compositions). I simply wanted to point out the near-perfect agreement of the two forms of the semitone.

It is ironic that you mentioned that someone once claimed that the Phi ratio is equal to 8 semitones! In fact, it is equal to (almost exactly) 8.33 semitones.

The request for a "reference" seems redundant. I have used simple mathematics. (Would I require a "reference" if I claimed that 2 + 2 = 4?)

By the way, I am not one of those "Golden Ratio freaks", trying to find the ratio everywhere I look!

It's also baffling that in working on the Semitone article, I contributed the number (139/138)^8 as an approximation of the semitone,(it has a more accurate value than the Phi semitone, being 0.999995131 semitone). The "discrency" here would be indistinguishable from the ET semitone, even accumulated over the entire range of human hearing. Oddly, this argument was readily accepted in the Semitone article.

If you want more information on the math I've provided, please let me know.

Thanks for your interest, Prof.rick (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again,

It occurred to me that my calculation of a "Phi semitone" was erroneous. Of the almost exact 25 semitones to which I referred, I had allowed 24 of them to be normal equal temperament semitones, so all the error accumulated on the 25th semitone. (Phi^3 need not be divided by 4.) Instead simply take the 25th root of Phi^3 to arrive at a Phi semitone. (This results in a Phi semitone of 0.99970836 of one ET semitone.) The accumulated discrepancy over the entire range of a piano is only about 2.5 cents...

Phi^3 = 4.236067978 25 ET semitones = (12th root of 2)^25, = 4.237852377

One "Phi semitone" = 25th root of Phi^3, or 1.059445247 One ET semitone = 12th root of 2, or 1.059463094

Example: Calculate a semitone from A 440 Hz, using equal temperament: 440 Hz x 12th root of 2 = 466.1637615 Hz Calculate a semitone from A 440 Hz, using Phi: 440 Hz x 25th root of Phi^3 = 466.1559086

I doubt if any piano tuner could tune "by ear" and achieve such a slight discrepancy over the entire range of a piano! Prof.rick (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Xiutwel!

I found your entry at the "Mathematical coincidence" article. Well done! Your recognition of the very close parallel is appreciated. I am still working on calculations. First, Phi^3 is not a random number...each third number of the Fibonacci Series is an even number. In fact, I came across the coincidence while looking for patterns within the Fibonacci Series. I calculated the relation between two neighbouring even numbers in the series, and immediately recognized the number was virtually the same as the expression of 25 semitones.

Unfortunately, when I first presented the point on the "Golden ratio" article, I assumed 24 of the semitones to be normal, ET semitones, and allowed all the discrepancy to fall onto the 25th semitone. But it occurred to me that Phi^3 should be seen as "25 Phi semitones", instead of 24 ET semitones, and one Phi semitone. The results were remarkable! I used the 25th root of Phi^3 as a semitone. The accumulated discrepancy over the entire range of a piano is only .02537306 of one ET semitone). It is often said that the human ear can normally detect a pitch differentiation of .05 semitone. In other words, not even a professional musician could likely detect the difference, even if piano tuners and mechanically tuned (acoustic) instruments were capable of such a distinction.

So what is the value of this observation to a musician? It certainly will have no effect on harmony or counterpoint! But, as a professional musician and composer myself, I can say it is EXTREMELY important for a musician to recognize the relation between music and other disciplines! Music is a "mirror of life", and as such, the more relations we find between music and other bodies of knowledge, the better! (It CAN effect "interpretation"!) This may sound somewhat subjective, but this is to be expected of any Art.

I have my own website. If I were to publish the relationship between Phi and the semitone, perhaps YOU could produce an article at the Golden Ratio article, quoting my site as a reference. Please let me know if you find this an agreeable plan...we would work on the entry together, hopefully moving it back to the Golden Ratio article.

Meanwhile, I might expand on your contribution in the area of "Mathematical coincidences".

Have a happy holiday! Prof.rick (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ziutwel,

Thank you for your work on Phi and the semitone, at "Mathematical coincidence". (I was unaware of this page.) Thanks also, through your work, teaching me how to write simple mathematical expression for Wikipedia.

The section is now complete (I think).

You asked the significance of Phi = 8.33 semitones. Modern composers often explore microtonal music, which requires the division of the semitone into 2, 3, 4, even 8 equal parts! (The Mexican composer, Carillo, had divided the semitone into 8 equal parts before the year 1900.)

I believe the signifance of $$\Phi{3}$$ is best understood when we study the value of the individual semitone, and the accumulated deviation from equal temperament over the entire range of a piano (which is imperceptible to the human ear).

Best, Prof.rick (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)