User talk:Xiutwel/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 archive - do not edit - pls talk on talk

[edit] archive - do not edit - pls talk on talk

[edit] 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)

[edit] Apollo moon landing hoax accusations

Sources must be cited and verifiable; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia: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)

[edit] Oklahoma City bombing

The same guidelines that Tom cited above, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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—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)

[edit] Prez

It's usually better not to link to things not directly related to the article (see Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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. — 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 8#TerrorStorm) 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crossing_the_Rubicon_(Ruppert)

Hi: here are a couple others I'd like to see undeleted:

Are you aware of this page where deletes are listed?

User:GabrielF/911TMCruft

Kaimiddleton 03:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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#References) 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Village Pump, you could try going through the Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../x/i/u/User_talk%7EXiutwel_archive_e80f.html"