User talk:Ihaveabutt

David Corn

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

A Take on Reliable Sources in the US

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliability

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Term?

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

something

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

For NPOV NoticeBoard: Summary: WTC CD Conspiracy Theory Name

Editors are discussing the pros and cons of the term conspiracy theory in the article name Here at WTC Controlled Demolition etc. Since I see the term as problematic, I highlight its cons. This is my (in progress) attempt to summarize my view.

First, that article appears to be about sources (Grif, Prof Jones) that use research not propaganda, not capricious innuendo (not capricious rumor-speculation etc).

Second, article is primarily about sources describing alleged crime scene evidence, not sources making claims of people-guilt (not "who conspired").

Third, by reading the entry for WP Conspiracy Theory, one can see three reasons it is not neutral (discussed above).

Fourth, as discussed above, WP advises against using words that (are, have); a) editorial/opinionated b) derogatory c) ambiguous d) multiple meanings

Fifth, some argue for the term conspiracy on grounds that it's widely found in pages discussing WTC Controlled Demolition. But the mere association of words, no matter how widespread does not itself determine the article name. If it were pervasively written that Britney Spears endorsed WTC Controlled Demolition, our article title would not thereby automatically incorporate her name. Many things that might be sometimes called conspiracy do not have that phrase in their article name (discussed above).

Sixth, some editors argue for the use of conspiracy on grounds that it is logically necessary ("How could it not be a conspiracy?" it was asked). But imagine if the name of the Article WP:Cat was instead WP:Cat Animal. The apparent logical association of two words is often crucial to how they are understood, but their interrelated nature never automatically means they must name things together. Most words (names) are associated with an immeasurably complex web of extra terms. Really, no sensible parent says "This is my human son."

Therefore, developing a consensus new name is needed. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

These pertain to the NPOV NoticeBoard, here: [1]

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

discussion without discussion

{{helpme}}

What is done when discussions are mostly toxic, constant personal insinuations and bad faith?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories#Van_D._Romero

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of that discussion seems to be to be reasoned argument about the topic. Yes, there are some inappropriate bits, but usually the best thing to do is to ignore them - stick to reasoned policy argument about the subject, and strive to reach a consensus. If there is a deadlock, it's useful to get more people involved; for example, you could look at other major contributors to the article (in the history) and ask them to look in on the discussion and give there opinion. You could also leave a note about it on a suitable project talk page, such as, perhaps, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York - leave a brief note saying you'd like more opinions, with a link to the discussion.

If there are further problems in reaching consensus, see the guide WP:DISPUTE. For example, asking for a third opinion often helps.

Note, the above is all about trying to improve the article - and that should be the focus. If there are issues with specific users, and inappropriate behaviour, then that can also be dealt with. See Wikipedia:ATTACK#Responding_to_personal_attacks. In the first case, ignoring may well work. If it continues, try to have a reasoned discussion with the specific editor if possible - try to explain why the remarks are not appropriate. If that fails, and the user is clearly breaching a policy, issue them with a warning. Ultimately, the account could be blocked.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:TALK

Please place your comments on talk pages only at the end of the thread; interpolating your comments between those of others changes the apparent meaning of the following comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point. However, you are free to ask me to move it, or to move it yourself. Deleting an editor's comments is not on game. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting an editor’s comments is “on game” when they’re against talk page policy. I’m curious about the specific instance you two are talking about, though. In any case, it looks as if you need to learn how to format comments on a talkpage. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice also that you editing note has the word 'manged'. You were also free to clarify your remarks, which were profoundly off point, and undermining of good faith. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That was a typo. "Mangled" was what I intended, which does not have even the connotation that it was intentional. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets moveon. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Map

{{help}} What is a useful venue to help get resolution of this:

Contested interpretations of a primary source quote.

Assuming that you've tried the talk page of the article route and/or calm discussion directly on the disputing editors' talk pages (always the first steps), and you've already failed to make headway, I think Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests would be a good place to try, as well as Wikipedia:Third opinion. Eventually, if nothing works, you can try doing doing a request for comment.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"big billboard" of wikipedia policies

{{help}}

How to I put away the "big billboard" of wikipedia policies that appears at the top of my talk page? --Ihaveabutt (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed it for you. Is this what you were looking to achieve, or would you like me to undo my edit? Beach drifter (talk)

You could have edited your talk page yourself and removed it. WP:TALK lists guidelines for Talk pages and mentions User talk pages specifically. In this case, removal implies that you have read the item.—C45207 | Talk 05:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No Wiki tags

Hi there;

I noticed your messages on User talk:Saint.Pierre.Pro, and thought I might be able to explain about 'nowiki' tags.

You can display Wikipedia 'code' without it being processed by putting <nowiki> at the beginning, and </nowiki> at the end. For example, if you put <nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki> it will display like this: {{helpme}} - so that you can show somebody the 'code' for the helpme template without actually calling helpers.

I hope that this helps; for more info, see Help:Wikitext examples#Just show what I typed.

 Chzz  ►  06:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Steven Jones

Hi there!! and sorry the delay... I saw things about it... but to be honest, i never saw very deep on the subject... But please keep in touch about it and let´s make a conversation (included the article about this).

Best regards. Lightwarrior2 (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

AE 911 Truth

I thought I had put the warning back after reverting the rest of the changes. My mistake. Oreo Priest ^talk 20:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop posting on my talk page. The article's talk page is the place for that. Oreo Priest ^talk 21:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok we can discuss it there, but I do not believe your combative sarcasm such as "if you have something useful to say" belong on any page. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

On the discussion page, you endeavor to note that bazant's view is an expert opinion. However, having a name, and publishing a paper on a different topic, does not make bazant an expert on how scientists view controlled demolition. He doesn't become an expert on that by virtue of the fact that people might assume his is. Rather, you have to have the actual knowledge produced with a credible method. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added a POV-section (section) warning, because my concern is that this specific section (and the other place where bazant is misleadingly quoted). --Ihaveabutt (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing a POV template warning

Thanks for the help!!

Cutting and saving to, this:

WP:DISPUTE.

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)