User talk:Wowest

Can Wikipedia be saved?

Given all of the gaming of the system we have seen going on here, we know that Wikipedia has problems. Some of the more objective editors have abandoned it entirely, but I would submit that certain areas are useful and perform a public service. Certain areas, however, are not and do not. . Some parts of Wikipedia are reliable. I use it all the time, myself, in conducting certain kinds of investigations. What is notable about a particular city, for example. That topic brings up both strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia. Such articles are frequently edited by local residents. This means that valuable, little-known information available nowhere else might be provided there. This also means, however, that prejudices might be introduced. Someone might come along and deleted everything in the article that doesn't reference what he considers to be a reliable source. Then, perhaps, there goes half of the value of the article along with anything that is really questionable. . Other areas are possibly quite reliable, but totally useless. This happens in mathematical and science topics rather frequently. The topic is so esoteric or so obscurely written that only an expert in the field can read it, and why would an expert be reading an encyclopedia? To read such an article, you would have to acquire a certain amount of expertise yourself first. Ironically, one of the better sources for such information is Youtube, which is not "considered" to be a "Wikipedia reliable source." People have actually created courses in various aspects of mathematics which can be accessed there. . Articles on corporations are often less than useful because they have been edited by employees of those corporations who are paid to keep Wikipedia biased in their favor. This turned up when Wikiscanner first came out. Other areas have similar problems. . The biggest issue here is that Wikipedia is used in schools, which inevitably includes some of the most unreliable areas. Perhaps we need a box to include at the top of every article in certain categories:

Warning:  Wikipedia articles are subject to tendentious editing by interested parties, and,
although possibly useful, to some degree, should not be considered as a definitive source 
for school research papers in certain areas. These include:

* activity and reputations of corporations
* religions
* medicine
* politics, geography or history after the year 1900

Are there any other topics that should be included?

Wowest (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin ryan (whistleblower and folk hero)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Kevin ryan (whistleblower and folk hero), 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 {{dated prod}} 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}}. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 05:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Kevin ryan (whistleblower and folk hero), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Kevin ryan (whistleblower and folk hero) is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Kevin ryan (whistleblower and folk hero) saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. P4k 05:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth

Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. P4k 08:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rescuing the info from the above deleted page

Wowest, I think this organization should be mentioned on the 9/11 Truth Movement page (just under the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice). Since the AfD, I can't now access the page to get the info. Have you got a copy? Would you care to make it into a brief, sourced summary on that page? Corleonebrother 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your style

you wrote "(Numerous sites on the internet point out that the "Osama bin Laden" on this video is NOT Osama bin Laden. The quality and color of his beard and the shape of his nose are a dead giveaway. The CIA not only botched the actor's appearance, but they didn't even get his script right and had to hoke up the translation as well)" on the article about the Bin Laden tapes. The information is indeed interesting and important, but while you employ such unencyclopediatric style it will be deleted for good. 'Numerous sites on the internet', for instance, is not a source; the CIA, actors and scripts belong to the domain of conspiracy theories, at least as long as the only basis for these daring assumptions are your honest words only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.188.251 (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Prem Rawat, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP warning

You have made an edit to Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of article talk pages

Article talk pages are not a discussion forum or a chat room. Talk pages are provided to discuss improvements to the articles in Wikipedia. You can engage in private conversations, to some extent, in your personal talk page User_talk:Wowest, or the personal talk pages of editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

I've been assuming that you, Rumiton and Momento are premies, engaging in the PROMOTION of Prem Rawat's business. I'm only requesting that you verify your own status, and I'm addressing you because you seem to be relatively sane. . To be as up-front as possible, I "received the Knowledge" of Prem Rawat in February of 1973. I rode in the back of a VW bug with Rennie Davis as he gave his sat sang about being attacked by a murder of crows for doubting the guru's divinity. I was in Detroit when the underground newspaper reporter hit the guru in the face with a shaving cream pie and was subsequently murdered. This is documented in Chapter Six of Sophia Collier's book "Soul Rush," although I don't think she knew the man actually died of a brain hemorrhage two weeks after the attack. I lived in a premie house with a woman who actually knew the reporter. I was injured at Millenium '73 while doing service in the kitchen, and sent home by my premie house because *I* now had medical bills. There my mother had me talk to a minister, and, later, to Ted Patrick. I was a total true believer. I tried to convert Ted Patrick to my beliefs. The result of that was that it took under twenty minutes for him to "deprogram" me. My original research now indicates that three of the four meditation techniques are likely to harm the people who practice them, but, of course, OR isn't acceptable on Wiki. . I've been away from Prem Rawat for years. Now, I'm surprised to see how things have changed. His brother's web site doesn't even acknowledge that Prem ever existed, and his brother used to support him. He also used to wear glasses, so I assume he's had surgery. . I feel a moral obligation to speak out against the teaching of these particular meditations, since I am convinced that they harm most people. Am I free to create my own article on meditation controversies as long as it's documented? . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 04:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you read the following policies: WP:SOAP, in which it is clearly stated that Wikipedia is not the place to engage in advocacy for or against something. Then read WP:NOR that explains that in Wikipedia we do not engage in "original research", meaning that we only present what published and reliable sources have said about a subject. You also need to read WP:NPOV in which it is explained how to write from a neutral-point perspective (which is a non-negotiable policy in Wikipedia), and finally become familiar with our verifiability policy that explains what sources are suitable for Wikipedia.

Once you have done that, you may want to collaborate with others in the article about Meditation and Health_applications_and_clinical_studies_of_meditation were material can be added to present such controversies as described in sources that are usable for our articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is a section already called Health_applications_and_clinical_studies_of_meditation#Adverse_effects, to which you can expand with material that is relevant, encyclopedic, and supported by reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another piece of advice, is not to assume or presume the motives of other editors contributing to this project, and you should expect the same treatment. See our policy of no personal attacks that basically states that you need to discuss the edits and not the editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... continued

And some info. Pat Haley didn't die.Momento 20:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Detroit newspapers, at the time, said that he died of a brain hemorrhage two weeks later. He had been treated and released for the fractured skull, and had appeared in public since, a but sliver of bone, which had penetrated his brain, killed him two weeks later. Do you have any evidence that he did anything the next year? Wowest 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Brauns, he spoke to Haley in the last year or so.Momento 03:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to you. Wowest 04:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent him an email. Wowest 07:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him. He said that he didn't talk to Haley himself, but that someone else told him that. I can see why Haley might wish to pretend to be dead, but you have moved me into agnosticism. Someone tried to kill Haley, but whether he died or not we don't really know right now. Wowest 21:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why then did the police decide not the pursue the assailants when DLM contacted the police and gave their whereabouts.Momento 00:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard whatever-his-last-name-was, the main premie in Detroit, stated that he contacted the police after the initial assault and offered to tell them who did it. He reported that the police told him to forget about it because political radicals are more dangerous than religious people. At the time, there was a call-in poll in one of the Detroit papers. Someone said "I think all gurus are communists." They printed that. The next day, a truck driver at work saw my Guru Maharaj Ji button and said "a communist!" That was a little bit scary. Then, the foreman said "No, he's a good worker," and nobody beat me up after all. Wowest 00:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wowest, thanks for your recollections. It's hard to recall now the emotions and attitudes of the 70s, both in general and those surrounding Maharaji. I think we were all more than a bit mad in a demonstrably mad society. Something way better is happening around Maharaji today, but it is taking "sources" a while to catch up with it. Rumiton 00:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the missionary attempt, I think. You're sure you're onto a good thing, and you want to share it. That's admirable. Wowest 19:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see my words as missionary. Last year I was talking with some friends about India, telling them what a vast, steaming heap of manure I had found the place to be. Someone said: "When were you last there?" and I said: "About 20 years ago." She said: "Well I just came back and it's changed a lot. Cleaner and easier and you can use mobile phones and get good drinking water now." She wasn't suggesting I go there, just telling me something. Same with the premie world. It's unrecognisably different these days, and way better. I'm just letting you know. Rumiton 07:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat A lot of criticism and sources have been omitted

A lot or sources and criticisms have been omitted. See [1] The vast majority of that article is sourced to reputable sources. I believe that there is no justification for the degree the omissions in any of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The reason for these omissions is that several contributors did not like what reputable sources stated. Andries 17:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More of your nonsense Andries. The record shows that your hatred for spiritual groups and leadership led you to misquote and mistranslate the writings of already biased, anti-eastern churchmen whose opinions would never be acceptable in a biography of a living person anyway. Why don't you do something positive with your life? Start a youth group or something. Rumiton 01:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your opinion then I suggest your or I seek dispute resolution because I think that you are completely wrong in your assesment of the proposed sources and my editing behavior. Andries 01:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All reputable sources have been used in the current article, and placed in the appropriate context. As for your editing behavior, you have had plenty of feedback already. Do you need anymore? Just say so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. I missed Mishler's crticism as voiced in the Washinton Post. Andries 01:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already discussed to death. Just to remind you that you blew your previous three attempts at dispute resolution. You have zero credibility in this project as it pertains to any assumptions of good faith, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You dismissed the opinion from an involved person in dispute resolution as misguided when he contradicted your opinion. So much for your credibility to follow good faith dispute resolution on one of your pet subjects. Andries 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I have to follow dispute resolution again when there so much disagreement that cannot be solved by endless discussion. Andries 01:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Andries. I think you have more to contribute here, but I don't have enough energy right now to say much more than that. Wowest 04:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not...

... troll my page, Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with that verb, sorry. I'm new here, remember? Are you going to answer my question about the Radha Soami conversation? Wowest 03:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit comments

Please do not randomly refer to other editors as "vandals" as you repeatedly do here. Please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Weregerbil 20:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More edit comments

Just because someone has bad grammar doesn't justify asking if "English is their second language" which frankly is none of your business. Try a little tact. --Marc ^Talk 01:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Warning

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a source

This [2], is not a source that can be used for Wikipedia. It is actually an old WP:MIRROR article of Wikipedia Anti-cult movement. Please stop re-adding it. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Sutton

You might be interested in Antony Sutton; particularly the link to one of his books in the bibliography section (the book about american establishment). Mr.grantevans2 13:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your theories on 9/11

Thanks for responding to my questions on the Talk page for Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. I don't have time to reply now, but you've given me plenty to think about. Terraxos (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WLA

This user wants you to join the Los Angeles area task force.

(♠Taifarious1♠) 02:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Truth Movement POV

Thanks for making the We are Change section a little less POV! :)Kevin (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Maybe you could have a look here. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Please do not re-add external links that violate our policies and guidelines. Please read Wikipedia:External links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and WP:BLP#External links ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God?

Make a New Year's resolution to get rid of one concept a week. Regards Momento (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "receive this Knowledge and know God within yourself. That pure energy, God, is within your own heart".
  • Peace Bomb statsang, 11 October 1970, India Gate, New Delhi, India (translated from Hindi)

What is God? You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk.

• • Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 2, 1971
• People think God is a man. People think God has got ears, nose, teeth and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And he is an old man and he has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy.
  • Central Hall, Westminster, London, UK, November 2, 1971
• People ask, ‚"Do you say that you are God?‚" I say, ‚"No, I am not God. . . . . . . I don't want to be God.‚" But what I do want to be is a humble servant of God so that I can teach people this Knowledge, so that I can give people this gospel of peace, love and Truth. That' all I want to do. So all these lectures, all these speeches that I am giving are just for this purpose.
  • Johannesburg, South Africa, 2 May, 1972
• Reporter: I was told that probably the best question to ask you, out of sincerity, is: who are you?

  Maharaj Ji: ... really I can't say who I am. But, though, there is a very basic thing, what I feel about myself. And that is that people have been claiming me as God or as Jesus or so on, and ah, many television people have been asking this question, and this is an interesting question of course. I thought maybe you will interested in the answer. I am not Jesus and I am not God or so on, but I am just a humble servant of God, and I am preaching this Knowledge, and it's ideal of humanity. I don't want to form a small sect or a religion. It's open thing to all. It's for all casts, all creeds, all colors. And man is human, and it's OK he can receive it. And it's something that is internal, something that does not interfere with any religion. And this is the highest thing that I am teaching, about the people of this time, today. I don't claim myself to be God. I don't claim myself to be something like that, but I can claim I can show you God.

  • Montrose, Colorado, 25 July, 1972
• When I was born, God existed. But I never new Him. I just never knew Him until Guru Maharaj Ji came into my life, till Guru Maharaj Ji came in my way, and showed me and revealed me that secret. And the day he did that, there it was, I knew God
  • And It Is Divine, (January 1973) Volume 1, issue 3 - Referring to the day his father and teacher gave him the techniques of Knowledge
• Question: Guru Maharaji Ji, are you God? – Answer: No. My Knowledge is God
  • Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?, (November 1973), Bantam Books, Inc.

I do not claim to be God, but do claim I can establish peace on this Earth by our Lord's Grace, and everyone's joint effort.

• • Proclamation for 1975, signed Sant Ji Maharaj the name by which Prem Rawat was known at that time. Divine Times (Vol.4 Issue.1, February 1, 1975

Momento (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Greater than god.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Greater than god.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greater than god.jpg

Image:Greater than god.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Greater than god.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Wafulz (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Fakeosama.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Fakeosama.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wafulz (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Image:Realosama.jpg.-Wafulz (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Mineta

Dear Wowest,

I would welcome any improvements you could make to my proposal at Talk:9/11#Norman Mineta testimony issue !  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

attributing

Hello Wowest,

I think we need to discuss the claim on the talk page, this is turning into edit warring, I'm afraid.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat 1RR probation

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on 9/11 conspiracy theories‎ . Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [3] The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request your input in a consensus survey re 9/11

Dear Wowest,

At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:

"The current form of the 9/11 article is at odds with the WP:NPOV policy, and the proposed inclusion of the fact that Michael Meacher alleges the US government of willfully not preventing the attacks, would make the article better, in stead of worse.

I would appreciate it when you could take a look.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Conspiracy Theory medcab

Hello. I am the informal mediator over at 9/11 conspiracy theories, and I'm trying to make an opportunity for editors to resolve some bad blood.

Recently, User:Haemo had posted this diff, where you say "I am aware that some of you people work for Homeland Security because some of those who do have admitted it", among other things that were possibly construed to mean that some of your fellow editors are (to quote Haemo) "repeatedly accusing the other of being paid shills to cover up the murder of thousands, there's a fundamental disconnect about what they're here to do."

Whether you meant this or not is maybe not so important; It has hurt Haemo's feelings, and it's my goal to build more trust. Would you be willing to apologize to him so we can build up some trust within the community? Xavexgoem (talk)

David Icke versus Homeland Security

Hi Wowest,

on March 9 you delivered quite a speech on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. I liked it.

People resent accusations, however: --Haemo 18:39, 11 March 2008

I would like you to bring some nuance into your postings, and assume good faith more often. I am a big fan of David Icke, which you seem not to be, and I agree with you he is not representative of the larger Truth Movement. He wrote an interesting piece today, which I've copied on my user page. Would you read it? It may be so that one or two editors are working for Homeland Security. However, this still does not prove they know the OCT is a lie. They might believe it, and be given some alterior motive to fight the Truth Movement. The main path the CIA and other agencies use is: to distribute falsehoods that are self-propagating (Haemo calls them memes). Most editors who are violating wikipedia policy in order to censor the (undisputed) truth, believe they are doing the right thing. If you were God, you could make them go away. You are not, we have to live together, and therefore one should assume good faith, which I interpret as: "the opposing editor is behaving as what he perceives to be the best way he can act in the interests of wikipedia and the World in general." It's tragic that our interpretations of "what's best" vary so much, but assuming bad faith helps not to solve our struggles. How is it for you to be reading this?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not for ideological struggle

Hi. Wikipedia is not to be used for ideological struggle. [This edit makes clear that you were trying to prove a point rather than write an encyclopedia article. Your edits have been reverted Please do not make those or similar edits again because this article is under a general sanction related to all 9/11 articles, and any uninvolved administrator can place any editor under whatever restrictions are necessary to prevent further disturbances. Please see WP:NPOV, and WP:V as the relevant policies for guidance. Thank you Jehochman ^Talk 16:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this edit[4] clearly violates Wikipedia's prohibition on original research. At the next instance of disruptive or tendentious editing, you will be banned from editing articles related to the 9/11 attacks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned: approximately one month for disruptive editing. This edit runs afoul of our policies on original research and verifiability, directly after you were warned to pay attention to them. This edit is stonewalling regarding sources and therefore constitutes disruption. Seeing this, I decided to take a look at a couple hundred of your recent contributions and have decided to ban you from all pages related to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States until June. Please read up on the banning policy if you've got any questions; if you desire redress, you can appeal either to me, the administrators' enforcement noticeboard, or to the arbitration committee. east.718 at 11:01, April 22, 2008

• east718, have you not judged in haste? The first edit is a revert of an ill-considered edit by Tom, and it survived editor consensus. The second is an opinion, how can having (and posting) such an opinion be cause for a ban? If you have reviewed a couple of hundred edits, you must be able to provide more diffs which are ground for this ban?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 [5] 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) 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not- in fact,I've never heard of him.While Jeanne is my first name,Boleyn is taken from Anne Boleyn who happens to be my favourite person in history.The Alamo bunch should be banned.They are dangerous-and I was a minor when they used to approach me!!06:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)

Millennium '73

In case you're interested: Millennium '73. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject, or I happen to know personally).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 00:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin Remarks

That was completely unacceptable. Do it again and I'll report you. --Tarage (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat Probation

Prem Rawat and related articles are under probation (which replaces the earlier 1RR mentioned above). See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat. Please seek consensus on the article talk page before making contentious edits.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory

Hi. I thought from your edit comment with this[6] edit that you may have meant to remove the statement (which I would entirely support, as it seems OR and vague); in fact, you reverted his move of the statement from one section to another. Cheers. Eleven even (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:911ct

Could you please explain to Arthur Rubin why you reverted his "defamatory BLP violation" on the 22nd of March. Please explain here: Template talk:911ct#Conspiracy theory.--189.121.183.72 (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review needed of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/September_11_conspiracy theories?

See: Proportion of 9/11 defenders restricted compared to 9/11 conspiracy theorists

Although I do not support the views of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and will not lead a review of this arbitration, I think that a review maybe warranted, and I am floating the idea, with all parties who may have been unfairly censored. Ikip (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Template:911ct, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  07:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed your post on U.S. State Terror page....

You can find an extensive section on El Salvador in the Feb 2008 archives of the page. Here's the text; if you go back and punch up any one of the pages from that time, you'll be able to call up the edit history and re-post the section.

I think this link should take you directly there: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_and_state_terrorism&diff=194431232&oldid=194404177#El_Salvador

I have no problem with you deleting the following text. I'm just posting it for convenience sake; take it out with a cut-and-paste and see what you want to use, or if you feel like going back to the archives and pulling up the entire thing then go ahead. I'm just trying to help you save a bit of time, here; not partial to seeing it remain, and not interested in cluttering up your discussion page.

El Salvador

The United States has been accused by scholars and human rights organizations of complicity in support of State Terrorism in the country of El Salvador, in a conflict characterized by rampant human rights abuses and political terror.[105] In his analysis of the U.N. Truth Commission's Report on El Salvador, Prof. Frederick Garneau argued for significant culpability on the part of United States governments.

   As is usually the case with truth commissions, the one for El Salvador did not focus on Washington's support for the government. .. That terror was committed in El Salvador is not disputed. Those who doubt this should reread the above and realize that an estimated 75,000 were killed in this small country in the period 1980 to 1991. The truth commission found that the terrorism that was committed in the country was overwhelmingly governmental terrorism, committed by the Salvadoran army, the National Guard, and their death squads and affiliated agencies. They were responsible for 95 percent of the deaths, the guerrillas for only five percent. These were the same institutions that were the concern and the favorites of Washington—receiving its indoctrination and training and profiting from its largess. El Salvador received six billion dollars in aid from Washington in the period 1979 to 1992. This subsidy to the tiny country during the government repression and terrorism came to average out at $100,000 for each member of its armed forces. This subsidy allowed the government to pay for the terrorist activities committed by the security forces. By virtue of this largess and the military training, notably in counterinsurgency warfare, Washington emerges in this chapter as an accessory before and during the fact. By covering up for San Salvador after it had committed terror, Washington was an accessory after the fact. It gave diplomatic support to state terrorism.
   —Frederick H. Gareau, [106]

According to the Americas Watch division of Human Rights Watch, “The Salvadoran conflict stems, to a great extent, from the persistent denial of basic socioeconomic rights to the peasant majority. Throughout the past decade systematic violence has befallen not just peasants protesting the lack of land and the means to a decent existence but, in a steadily widening circle, individuals and institutions who have espoused the cause of the peasants and decried their fate."[107] In retrospective assessments, human rights organizations and truth commissions have echoed the claim that the majority of the violence was attributable to government forces.[108][109][110]A report of an Amnesty International investigative mission made public in 1984 stated that “many of the 40,000 people killed in the preceding five years had been murdered by government forces who openly dumped mutilated corpses in an apparent effort to terrorize the population.”[111] In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992.[112][113]

While peasants were primarily victimized, the killing of civilians extended to clergy, church workers, political activists, journalists, union members, health workers, students, teachers, and human rights monitors.[114]The state terror took several forms. Salvadoran security forces, including army battalions, members of the National Guard, and the Treasury Police, performed numerous clearance operations, killing indiscriminately, and perpetrating many massacres and massive human rights violations in the process.[115][116] The episode of the war responsible for the single largest civilian death toll occurred on December 11, 1981, when the U.S.-trained elite Atlacatl Battalion of the Salvadoran army killed approximately nine hundred men, women, and children in and around the village of El Mozote. Human rights violations included decapitation, raping young girls before killing them, and massacring men, women, and children in separate groups with U.S.-supplied M-16 rifles.[117] A report compiled by the villagers found that more half of the victims were under fourteen.[118] It is reputed to be the worst such atrocity in modern Latin American history, but when news emerged of the massacre, the Reagan administration in the United States dismissed it as FMLN propaganda.

Death squads worked in conjunction with Salvadoran Security services to eliminate opponents, leftist rebels, and their supporters.[119] The squads were a means by which members of the armed forces were able to avoid accountability. Typically dressing in plainclothes and using vehicles with smoke-tinted windows and numberless license plates, terror tactics included publishing death lists of future victims, delivering empty coffins to the doorsteps of future victims and sending potential victims invitations to their own funeral.[120] Cynthia Arnson, a long-time writer on Latin America for Human Rights Watch, argues that “the objective of death squad terror seemed not only elimination of opponents, but also, through torture and the gruesome disfiguration of bodies, the terrorization of the population.”[121] The prototype of the El Salvadoran death squads was ORDEN, a paramilitary spy network that terrorized rural regions and which was founded by Col. Jose Alberto Medrano, a former agent on the CIA payroll. Medrano was awarded a silver medal by President Lyndon B. Johnson, "in recognition of exceptionally meritorious service."[122].[123] One of Medrano's proteges, Roberto D'Aubuisson, was trained at the U.S. army's school in Panama and at The School of the Americas. D'Aubuisson was founder of the Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) whose public face was that of a rightist political party, but which also ran death squads secretly. In the spring of 1980, when D'Aubuisson was arrested for plotting against the administration of José Napoleón Duarte, a mass of documents was found implicating him in numerous death squad activities, including detailed plans linked to the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero. The Reagan administration was accused of ignoring the evidence implicating D'Aubuisson.[124]

In the mid-1980s state terror in El Salvador increasingly took the form of indiscriminate air forces bombing, the planting of mines and harassment of national and international medical personnel- “all indicate that although death rates attributable to death squads have declined in El Salvador since 1983, non-combatant victims of the civil war have increased dramatically.[125]

Critics maintain that the U.S. economic and military aid played an essential role in enabling state terrorism in El Salvador. Specifically that the U.S. government — during the period of the worst abuses — provided El Salvador with billions of dollars, and equipped and trained an army, which kidnapped and disappeared more than 30,000 people, and carried out large-scale massacres of thousands of the elderly, women, and children.[5] El Salvador became the fourth largest recipient of U.S. aid, behind Israel, Egypt, and Turkey.[126] In a joint 1982 report on human rights in El Salvador, The Americas Watch Committee and the ACLU place emphasis on U.S. military aid and training because it was "being provided to the same units alleged to be engaged in violations of human rights."[127] The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights argued that because of the extensive provision of “funding, military equipment, training and military guidance” to the Salvadoran armed forces, as well as the fact that the U.S. “identified itself unreservedly” with the causes and conduct of the Salvador military, the U.S. “bears a heavy burden of responsibility”, and moreover argued that “there may be no place else where the United States is so directly responsible for the acts of a foreign government.”[128]

Allegations also point to the role that U.S. administrators played in both protecting the responsible military leaders from legal accountability, and the Salvadoran regime from criticism, while simultaneously maintaining the flow of over one billion dollars of military aid. According to the UN Truth Commission report, over 75% of the serious acts of violence reported took place during the Reagan administration’s time in office.[129] Cynthia Arnson argues that when the killing was at its height, “the Reagan administration downplayed the scale of abuse as well as the involvement of state actors.”[130] When Congress passed a law, unpopular with the Reagan administration, which placed conditions of assurances of human rights compliance and progress on agrarian reforms, the administration issued certification reports every six months that drew heavy criticism, particularly from human rights groups. The first certification report was submitted on January 28, 1982. On the eve of the reports The Washington Post and New York Times published feature articles by American investigative journalists describing massacres in early December of 1981 in and around the village of El Mozote. The massacres had been mainly perpetrated by the Atlacatl Battalion, the first "rapid response unit" to be trained in the U.S. The certification report was only six pages long. William Leogrande remarked that the report “contained little evidence to support the declaratory judgments that progress had been made in all of the areas required by law. The report refused to acknowledge any government complicity in human rights violations...Moreover the report flatly denied that the paramilitary death squads were linked to the government.”[131] Leogrande further noted that “no independent human rights group agreed with the Reagan administration’s portrait of the situation.”[132] The Americas Watch Committee and American Civil Liberties Union jointly referred to the report as a "fraud."[133] Subsequent reports by U.S. agencies on the human rights situation were met with similar incredulity and contempt. A review of the Department of State's 1983 report on human rights in El Salvador by Americas Watch, Helsinki Watch and the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights concluded "all in all, this is a dreadful report."[134]The Reagan Administration's actions included vociferous denunciations of their critics. In a retrospective report entitled El Salvador's Decade of Terror: Human Rights Since the Assassination of Archbishop Romero, Human Rights Watch summarized the administration's behavior thusly, "during the Reagan years in particular, not only did the United States fail to press for improvements...but in an effort to maintain backing for U.S. policy, it misrepresented the record of the Salvadoran government and smeared critics who challenged that record. In so doing, the administration needlessly polarized the debate in the United States and did a grave injustice to the thousands of civilian victims of government terror in El Salvador."[135]

The extensive role of military advisers in El Salvador has also been raised as suggestive of wider systemic abuses of ethical and legal norms. According to William Leogrande’s analysis “a great deal of the Reagan administration’s policy toward Salvador was considered on what former Senator Sam Irvin called ‘the windy side of the law’. The president used his emergency powers, even when there was no emergency, to send $80 million in military aid to El Salvador without congressional review” (Leogrande, 281). The Reagan administration carried out circumventions and arbitrary re-definitions of laws stipulating the quantity and role of advisers.

Defenders of U.S. policies object to these allegations, emphasizing that the U.S. explicitly promotes professional conduct, including observance of human rights within its military and police training programs. They argue that the U.S. should not be held responsible for the actions of individuals trained by them.

Defenders also justify military aid by claiming it was necessary for defending U.S. National Security Interests. The FMLN guerrillas military efforts, including terrorist acts committed by them, seriously threatened the Salvadoran government. This was deemed a threat to "national security." As president Reagan argued in his historic national television address in 1984, "San Salvador is closer to Houston, Texas than Houston is to Washington, D.C. Central America is America; it's at our doorstep. And it has become a stage for a bold attempt by the Soviet Union, Cuba and Nicaragua to install communism by force throughout the hemisphere,"[136]. The U.S. State Department provided detailed evidence for the links between the FMLN, Nicaragua, Cuba and the Soviet Union in its White Paper,"The Communist Interference in El Salvador." The document argues that the U.S. chose the most viable middle path between the right and left extremes undermining the country. The U.S. supported the Duarte government which worked with "some success to deal with the serious political and economic problem that most concern the people of El Salvador."[137] Military aid and training given to Salvador eventually professionalized their armed forces and prevented the insurrection by guerrillas from succeeding. The death of many innocent civilians is regarded as regrettable but necessary for Salvadoran and American security, and future prosperity. Concerning the air war campaign involving the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations, both the Salvadoran government and U.S. state officials maintained that peasants who stayed in the zones selected as targets are to be assumed to be guerrilla sympathizers.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.160.175.249 (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of arbitration enforcement request

I have requested enforcement of WP:ARB911 against your account. Please reply at WP:AE. Jehochman ^Talk 18:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome of complaint

Further to the above request, I have closed the complaint with the following result:

I will preface this closure with two statements: (1) in the course of my administrator duties, I tend to extend extreme leniency; (2) the result of this complaint is one which extends great leniency to Wowest.

Wowest's editing in the 9/11 subject area is concerning in a few aspects: whilst his interest in the subject has given rise to a wide array of improvements to articles pertaining to it, it could also be argued that it has resulted in an element of bias entering into the content of his edits. Editors should be aware that, if they find themselves unable to write neutral, factual articles—most especially in subject areas that they are keenly interested in—then they ought to be not contributing to that subject area at all. Wowest: please take note of that entire sentence; and, if you feel you can't write accurate and unbiased 9/11 articles, then withdraw from contributing to the subject area at all (lest you be removed by means of a topic ban).

With regards to the specific incident which prompted this complaint, I'm willing to extend leniency—in light of the ambiguities of the sources, due to the confusion over the timing of the "retirement / resignation incident", to assume good faith, and to conclude that Wowest was not, in making this edit, deliberately altering the content of the article in a way that, (a) skewed it towards a particular bias, and/or (b) [hence] made the article inaccurate.

To resolve this complaint, I'm extending no restrictions on Wowest, based on the evidence presented in this complaint. I am, however, issuing a formal, final warning to Wowest: if he, in any article in the 9/11 subject area, (a) edits disruptively; or (b) introduces biased, inaccurate, or poorly sourced material, he can expect to be banned from editing 9/11 articles. (If a complaint is brought against him in the future, I ask that I be alerted to it, so that I may present my individual input on it.)

On a closing note, I ask—probably in vein, what with this subject area's contentious history; but, I ask nonetheless—that all editors contributing to 9/11 articles remember that we're trying to build a project which benefits our readers (by presenting them with fully-sourced, accurate, and up-to-date information), rather than one which suits whatever rendition of events we believe in or whatever biases we happen to hold.

I hope this provides some degree of resolution to the debate surrounding this complaint.

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&oldid=288569386 23:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are confused about any aspect of what I've written, please do get in touch with me and I'll do my best to clarify and explain what I mean.

Please do your utmost to abide by the result of this complaint; I've shown you some leniency here by not topic banning, and I'd like to see some productive contributions from you as a result.

My best, AGK 09:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You last edit, Wowest, [7], is an example of the kind of thing we don't need. Jehochman ^Talk 12:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted a {{who}} tag there.[8] The statement "Conspiracy theorists have claimed that passengers of one or both of those flights were murdered or they were relocated." is not an accurate representation of the facts, as evidenced by reliable sources. The wording of the sentence is weasel wording anyway, with or without the word "some".  Cs32en  12:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any bias in that edit (actually I see a lot of bias in the article but it is the same kind of bias of Jehochman).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. Do any of you recall which article had the quote from the Episteme article with the title including the words "Arrested Development?" Wowest (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Many "truthers" wear "truther" tee shirts.

Reminds me of a Bill Engvall routine.… — NRen2k5^(TALK), 04:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request

Please see [9]. Thanks, Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wowest: I would ask that you read my comments at the arbitration enforcement thread and offer any thoughts you have. Thank you, AGK 16:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned from 9/11 subject area for 3 months

Despite being warned, I hold that, in editing articles related to the 9/11 subject area, you have failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia and to the community's expected standards of behaviour. Accordingly, per this AE thread, I ban you from editing any article or talk page that is, broadly interpreted, related to the 9/11 attacks. (The provision for this ban is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions.) This ban is effective immediately.

After 3 months, this topic ban will be considered expired and you are free to edit pages in the 9/11 subject area; at that time, I would implore you to bear in mind the need to adhere to Wikipedia's communal norms and site policies—especially those detailed here—when contributing to the encyclopedia (and especially to controversial subject areas). Informally, I would note my willingness to, after 2 months or so, consider amending the topic ban to allow you to edit 9/11 talk pages.

I would note that in the event you violate this topic ban, your account will be blocked from editing (and any edits you make reverted).

AGK 14:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that you leave this topic here for a few more days so that I will have time to provide the reply everyone seems to be waiting for. Then, I will make another request. Wowest (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Truth from a different angle

I was reading your user page and thought the bit about Prem Rawat was interesting. Don’t you think that maybe 9/11 Truth is more of the same (albeit not as competent). Their claims are really seductive to those of us who dislike the mainstream political parties or the status quo, but just because we want to believe something doesn’t make it real. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask this. What do you imagine that I believe? You really don't know. You might get an idea from my recent edits, but I don't think you have thought much about what I have done and in what context I have done it.

You still don't really know what the guru trip was like, either. That's O.K. Just don't do what I did. (Whatever THAT means). LOL

I made my own Rule for the Ages afterward: "just because someone has shown you something wonderful that you never imagined possible does not mean that his explanation for it is accurate."

Ben Franklin said "believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear." Or something like that.

9/11 Truth is what you might call a "big tent" movement. There is no common belief except that we have, in some way, been lied to by the Bush admin. about what happened on 9/11. Some mainstream journalists compiled a list of lies coming from George Walker Bush and his top assistants. As I recall, they cataloged over nine hundred in two years after 9/11, and that had little or nothing to do with 9/11. Why should we believe that they have been more honest about what happened on 9/11?

Some of those who identify with the Truth movement currently believe in one conspiracy theory or another. Some of us do not.

The "witch hunters" who are busily calling all Truthers "conspiracy theorists" or "9/11 deniers" are simultaneously promoting a single conspiracy theory. There is a philosophical question here, and Dr. David Ray Griffin is the most famous professional philosopher who has commented on it. He refers to "the Official Conspiracy Theory." You know what it says. You probably believe in the whole thing. I did at first. I was actually saddened that the nineteen hijackers had been so totally brainwashed that they imagined that they were doing something good by killing so many innocent people. . Then, one day, while researching a cowboy song, I found this essay: http://www.ilaam.net/Sept11/GhostRiders.html . Not that I believed the whole thing, but it opened my mind to something. So, then I looked at it again. I had seen people jump from the towers, presumably because a death from falling seemed less painful to them than the pain they were feeling from the fire. OK. That apparently happened. Then I looked at the explanation, which I had previously accepted. Why did I believe each part of what I believed? . I invite you to consider the possibility that you are alive today because you trusted your mother and because your mother was trustworthy. I invite you to consider the possibility that over ninety nine percent of what she taught you was pure gold and that less than one percent was total bull. In life, we all have to sort that out. One thing your mother taught you was who else to trust. Each subsequent person you trusted led you to trust more people. None of these people cared about you as much as your mother did, I imagine. I could be wrong. I have had other people in my life who cared about me at a similar level, although I didn't always recognize it at the time. I'll come back to this later, if that's O.K. with you.

Wowest (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I guess your attitude w.r.t. 9/11 Truth on Wikipedia led me to believe you were pretty far down the rabbit hole. Now it sounds more like maybe you’re a skeptic a bit like me, just applying your skepticism to a different side of the story than me. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 07:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to consider the possibility that my "attitude" on 9/11 Truth here is also a matter of interpretation. My biggest recent concern has been about this "conspiracy theorist" vilification. There are two sides to the controversy. One side is promoting a largely unsupportable conspiracy theory. The other side is called "9/11 Truth," and it involves a variety of people with a variety of viewpoints. Side one is always screaming "conspiracy theory," even if the issue being discussed has nothing to do with the Wikipedia definition. At the same time, they are busy adding OR and SYNTH to that definition. Is the "controlled demolition hypothesis" as presented by Richard Gage, AIA, the most outspoken current advocate, a conspiracy theory? No. Is Gage a "conspiracy theorist?" No. In media interviews by several reliable sources he says that he is not a conspiracy theorist and he steadfastly refuses to speculate as to who planted the explosives. He compares himself with a policeman who has arrived at a crime scene and is reporting that a crime has been committed. Determining who did it and why is someone else's responsibility. The conspiracy theory article avoids the relevant academic discipline (social epistemology) and concentrates on the one sponsored financially by the CIA -- the allegation that there is something wrong with anyone who would ever consider the possibility that the CIA had done anything covert. Wowest (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Prem Rawat

Your most recent posting to Talk:Prem Rawat does not appear likely to be helpful. Discussing brainwashing in general is fine, but implying that a particualr editor is brainwashed is probably a personal attack. I urge you to refactor your comments substantially, or just leave them out entirely.   Will Beback  talk  16:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We all have our views, but sometimes it's best if we keep them to ourselves.   Will Beback  talk  18:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the editor has proposed any changes (yet). Let's see what happens.   Will Beback  talk  19:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sock ban

I understand user Pergamino has been banned for allegedly being a sock of Jossi. It makes me wonder, because all I remember about Pergamino was a difference of opinion recently, which I would not have expected with Jossi (or any suspected alias of his), as we rather used to share a similar POV. So I tried to find out on what evidence this ban is grounded, but that seems to be concealed or hard to find. Can you perhaps show me where to find material to remove my doubt?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Oops, sorry, this edit was originally meant to be placed on Will Beback's talk page and landed accidentally on yours. But maybe you can help just as well...?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of /userboxen

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Opus 113 (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV in the Hoover article

How can you consider calling his role a "hypocritical" character to not be POV? If a reliable source says that, fine. But right now, it is nothing but your take on how the character is being portrayed. That is why I reverted it. Get a source and it's all good. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It takes too many words otherwise. One of the characters describes Hoover and his chief assistant as "diddling" each other during working hours, at taxpayer expense, while Hoover wears a red dress and listens to tape recordings of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King cheating on his wife in a mote room. That is clearly hypocritical, but I'll reconsider that if you can come up with a better word for it. The FBI subsequently (not in the movie) sent the illegal recording to King's wife and engaged in other activities intended to drive him to suicide. Then King was murdered. We don't know by whom. The last jury was in a civil trial in which the jury found that James Earl Ray wasn't the killer. Who was the killer? We don't know. Did J. Edgar know who did it? I don' know. If I expressed an opinion that would be POV. Wowest (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, if you expressed that opinion in the article, it would be POV. Your opinion means nothing in the article. Neither does mine. We don't express opinions in articles. We take what reliable sources say and put them into the articles. You are taking what you saw on the screen and giving your opinion on his conduct (ie hypocritical). You may be 100% right, but unless you got that published somewhere in a reliable source, it is just your point of view. Even then, we'd have to verify it was published. Why not find a reliable source that characterizes his role and just do things the way they are supposed to be done? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unreliable source at article Landmark Education

Your recent edit to the article Landmark Education [10] removed sourced info to secondary sources, and added info cited to www.keepandshare.com. This is not a WP:RS source. Please do not do this again. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program at MSU

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're listed as a Wikipedian associated with Michigan State University. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at MSU, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone in the East Lansing area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh event for Wikipedia's tenth anniversary

Hi! Since you're listed as a Wikipedian in Pittsburgh, I wanted to invite you to the Wikipedia Tenth Anniversary celebrations we're having in Pittsburgh on Saturday, January 15. During the daytime, we're going to be having a photo contribution drive where anyone can bring in their digital photos or prints and Wikipedians will teach people how to upload them and add them to articles, and maybe introduction to Wikipedia workshops as well. Then in the evening, we'll have fun at the Carson City Saloon. There will be free Wikipedia t-shirts and other goodies, as well. See the Pittsburgh meetup page for more details. I hope to see you there!--ragesoss (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LA-area Meetup: Saturday, November 19

	National Archives Backstage Pass at the Reagan Library
	You are invited to the first-ever backstage pass tour and Wikipedia editathon hosted by the Reagan Presidential Library, in Simi Valley, on Saturday, November 19th! The Reagan Library, home to a real Air Force One and other treasures from American history, will take Wikipedians on a special tour of the grounds and archives, followed by an editathon; free catered lunch provided. Please sign up! Dominic·t 21:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

Invitation

	Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park
	You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 23, 2012! Last year's was a blast (see the LA Weekly blog post on it) and we hope we can do better this year. We would love to have you there! —howcheng {chat} 04:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

2013 Wikinic

	Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park
	You are invited to the third Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there! —howcheng {chat} 02:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

Wikipedia Meetup

You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 04:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Meetup

Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official Conspiracy Theory listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Official Conspiracy Theory. Since you had some involvement with the Official Conspiracy Theory redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —rybec 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification motion

A case (September 11 conspiracy theories) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh meetup

Pittsburgh Wikipedians are invited to a meet up on April 3, 2015. Meetup Pittsburgh

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]