Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:01, 18 April 2009

This is Jehochman's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Please leave a new message. I generally prefer to keep conversations on the page where they start. Please follow Strunk & White's advice, "Omit needless words!" Unblocks: If I block a user, any administrator is free to refactor the block unless I have specifically requested contacting me first. I may remove comments posted here if no response is needed, or if I respond elsewhere.

How Then Can I Disprove Sockpuppetry

?

Gamma-ray burst history

(part 2)

Thanks

The 911 conspiracy theories can be a maddening area to work on. Thank you for putting in the time. The general sanctions and WP:AE only work because you and a few others are willing to with get involved. Tom Harrison 12:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Friendly advice"

You are giving me "friendly advice", according to a recent edit summary of one of your posts (diff), and you are posting other comments that appear as if you would be willing to work out differences in a cooperative way. At the same time, you are trying to initiate administrative processes against me, without informing me of this fact. How should I interpret your messages as friendly advice, under these circumstances? I'm wondering whether you are posting these messages with the aim of presenting them later on as evidence that you would have tried to resolve matters in a cooperative way.

Are you going to discuss the existing differences of opinion in a cooperative way? Then we should set up section on either your talkpage or my talkpage, and we should not insert comments related to our dispute in places where they are off-topic or simply ad hominem. Alternatively, you can of course continue to seek admininstrative enforcement against me. However, you probably understand that I would not be able to interpret your posts as friendly communication under these circumstances. --Cs32en (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Start by looking at your editing from the position of somebody who' been here for four years and seen dozens of accounts banned for tendentiously putting forward argunents very similar to yours. I am open to the possibility you are a good faith user who is not deceitfully involved with the Truther attempts to spin Misplaced Pages. You may simply be somebody who's been taken in by their propaganda, or you might be a philosophical or principaled person who disagrees with how things appear to work. Do you understand how poisonous the 9/11 editing environment has become? Its very depressing to have a stream of redlink account coming in here at the requestof an external site to damage our articles. Yeah, a few innocents get caught up too, which is unfortunate, but how exactly do we solve this without giving in to those acting against the encyclopedia? Jehochman 14:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You have collapsed the talk page edits of other users, including one who is blocked indefinitely. At the same very moment, and on the same talk page, you have deleted my proposal to include information into the article. I would appreciate if you would reconsider this decision, and undo your revert. You can always leave a comment if you do not agree with my proposal or if you object to the way I have presented it. --Cs32en (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Somebody else did the first collapse, and that seemed to be a good idea, so I changed what I was doing at that point. Jehochman 22:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We are probably in a process in which the reliability of the various sources that support different pieces of information is evolving. For an example, see the interwiew with Niels Harrit on the Danish government-channel TV2 (english subtitles). The broadcast begins by simply stating: "International researchers have found traces of explosives in the rubble of the World Trade Center." --Cs32en (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. That's not really a debatable issue; the source is totally unreliable. If traces of explosives were found at WTC, this would be front page news at the New York Times. Apparently some journalists in Denmark who are unfamiliar with American media made a mistake in their reporting. They apparently heard Truther propaganda or rumor and erroneously reported it as fact. Please drop this line of argument. I am not interested in talking to people who play the game we call WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Jehochman 22:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Puzzled

Hi Jehochman, I'm a bit puzzled about you stance on the Niels Harrit paper. The CD article includes a reference to Hufschmid's Painful Questions, which was an early (I think self-published) statement of the theory. While I agree that the Harrit paper is not published in a very impressive venue, it is surely a more reliable source of information about what the demolitionists are arguing than that book. It is also seems like a more reliable source of Jones's thinking about thermite than his previously published work. (No one is defending a formulation that says "Thermite has been found in the WTC dust", just "A paper has claimed that thermite has been found...") What am I missing here?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Have any reliable sources reported on the significancy of this paper? If not, then it violates verifiability, undue weight, and no original research for us to report on the paper. Lots of people write lots of papers. We don't cover them unless they appear in a reliable source, or are talked about by reliable sources. Jehochman 13:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I right to think that this principle requires that a great deal of other material then also needs to be removed? I'm actually not sure that's a bad idea. I think the recent trouble stems in part from the ragged state of the article. If it was tidier statement of the theory and its status perhaps it would be easier to maintain a stable version?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes less is more. I think the article may be excessively long. Jehochman 15:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What, in your opinion, are the the three or four most reliable sources of information about the controlled demolition theory (not outlets but actual sources, i.e., articles)? It might be useful to construct a version of the article based only on those sources as a start, and then, if necessary, expand carefully from there. I could do that in a sandbox without violating my ban, and then you could use it as you choose.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be worthwhile to write a crisp version of the article in your sandbox that neither used government sources, nor anything published by those who feel that information has been supressed. In other words, only use mainstream media sources, stuff where the writer has no stake in the outcome. I can't say offhand what are the best sources, but if you make a draft, I'll review it for you and give feedback. Jehochman 05:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I sure do appreciate all the help you have provided neutralizing the CTers on 9/11 related articles. While oppsed at all times ot silencing them outright, the repeat offenders and those that continue to peddle ridiculousness do nothing but harm the integrity of 9/11 related articles...thanks again.--MONGO 04:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)