Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:59, 19 June 2009

Welcome!

Hello A Quest For Knowledge, welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Misplaced Pages:Questions or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

To follow up on your questions on the help desk, you can read more about the different types of protection (move protection and edit protection) and the different levels (semi-protection and full protection) on this page...if you've got any questions then I'll happily help you out - just drop me a line on my talk page. _Gb 20:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

Thank you, it was very kind of you to say so. Jayjg 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

The Reference Desk Barnstar Thanks for answering my Guitar Hero Karaoke question on the Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your advice. I will follow your suggestion. Will in China (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions

Hi. Just to let you know, I very much appreciate your work in trying to source and improve List of common misconceptions. Although there is obviously a lot of disagreement about exactly how to proceed through the improvements, I think that a lot of progress is being made already. In light of the debates there, I'll try to make sure to do a good google search to see if I can turn up supporting references before removing lines in the future. Hopefully if we keep up the work the article will end up being much better for it. Cheers- Locke9k (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Locke9k. I think we've made some excellent progress in the last week or so. I updated the talk page to indicate the remaining items that I plan on working on. Assuming I do one a day, I should be done in about 10 days. After that, I will have no objection to any unsourced items being removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Need support to add new material to WTC7

As the new NIST report of Nov.08 now includes an interesting free-fall theory, I thought it is worth adding it to the official WTC7 page. However, as its a major change, I'm now looking for users supporting me to create an acceptable version of the article, which is Wiki conform and contains the main facts. I've created a first version in the WTC talk page Talk:World_Trade_Center#WTC7 in the hope to get some feedback. --Johninwiki (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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  07:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Source Noticeboard & Ning

Hi Quest,

There has been some dispute over the Controversies section of the Ning article. This dispute can be found in the talk page.

I see you are a regular contributor to the RS Noticeboard. It would be great if you'd review this dispute and help resolve it by weighing in whether Charting Stocks is a reliable source here. While there are multiple issues beyond WP:RS, this seems to be the biggest point of contention at the moment. Thanks! Kangaru99 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Information from Chronicle

Hi Quest — A lot of information has been removed from the article, although it is supported by reliable sources, and although these sources found it to be relevant. If we leave this piece of information from the Chronicle in the article, the recently removed information from the New York Times and other sources should be restored to the article immediately. How do you think about this issue? — Regards.  Cs32en  23:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This article gets changed a few thousand times a day (OK, that's maybe an exageration but it sure seems like it) and I can't keep up with all the changes. Which edits are you referring to? Some diffs would help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to three edits earlier today. I have listed them in the section Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories#Undue weight?  Cs32en  01:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, and ...

Sir quest: Would you be so kind as to convey your thoughts (on the cd lead) with a little more whatever, for aims of consensus? There is no editing war and I can't guess others' perceptions of the two language options. I don't perceive an inclination to search for whatever benefit my change might have intended or might have achieved. I acknowledge last week I was not the best listener. Starting fresh. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

My primary concern is with the word "claim...abc"; I am hoping some editors have read some of the primary sources. I have read NIST, FEMA, Jones and Griffin very carefully. Yes, lets avoid original research. Yes, secondary sources generally get more sway than primary sources. still, WP:RS notes primary sources are often wrong WP:RS calls for editors to use reason and common sense. Just one part (claim ...abc) is my primary concern in the first line. When newspapers have used that work, I interpret as "news lingo" that just tries to create a simple story line by putting each party into a box. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

So, again RS says editors must use reason and judgment. A simple (no interpretation) reading of Jones is that his work is NOT about merely claims in such a simple sense. Same for Griffin. I am not saying they are right; I am saying what they do is obvious to any college student. What they do is first is collect hundreds of pages of evidence (yes, allegedly controversial if you want) that argue that government claims are not credible. Even if it is wrong or fringe, it is "wrong or fringe" that is not "merely a claim", not merely a conclusion. It has the format of scholarly analysis, not just something claimed based on assumptions. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Using the judgment and reason called for in RS, I am saying that a face reading of what they do should be permissible enough to adjust this the one word. I base this not just on WP:RS suggesting that editors must use reason and discretion, but also on the fact that dozens of newspapers in recent years have been wrong when support official government opinions. They admitted as much, and there are dozens of sources to show that, and I noted this in the discussion page of RS. Hundreds, actually thousands, of newspapers got stories wrong when supporting official government claims. Examples of the stories include: WMD, Torture, Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The word better than "claim" would be "suggest". --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What they do is more specific and less controversial than what the existing language entails. Claim makes it possible that they might just be pulling it out of a hat. I don't mean they are right. Again, I mean what they do, right or wrong, is not theoretical speculation from the top of their head, nor is there any evidence it is a propaganda campaign or merely opinion campaign (again, even if they are wrong). --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What does Jones do? Yes, secondary sources are generally favorable to secondary sources, but any college student will see that he does things like: assesses evidence of competing hypothesis; suggests that CD is scientifically supported by evidence; and calls for further investigation. That is more nuanced than just "claim". --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What Griffin primarily does is find flaws, a technically negative endeavor; he does not primarily do/make (technically positive) claims, although he does a little. Only very secondarily does he make suggest that CD is more likely than fire, etc. Some truth reserachrs don't make any "absolute" claims whatsoever, they only say what is more or less likely based on the evidence. Maybe you have seen media footage. Media interviewers, seemingly addicted to controversy, love to focus instead on the conclusions, which are false picture of the analyses do in totality. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

For these reasons I perceive the word "claim" as being not just accurate, but also having hgte effect of propaganda. Without that change, I think the wikipedia article will seem like a replay of news falsities in recent years like WMD, Torture, Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch.--Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

New kid on the block

I’m thinking that Reader2010 is probably a single-purpose sock, possibly of a banned editor. What do you think? — NRen2k5, 18:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You've been mentioned

At Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Tom_harrison. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Jone, Griffith ,,?

Before we equate truth researchers and holocaust deniers, have you read Griffin's latest book and Jones' simple article 14 points of agreement? Ok, well, you don't equate them, but you mention them together in justifying a certain pejorative way (see WP:WordsToAvoid) of charactering people who do study and research 911 and question the validity of certain government reports. The article called 14 Points is short easy reading, starting this way In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't read them. I've seen Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries but that's about it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the question live still?

I see at AE911 you raised pressing questions of notability. I also recognize that a table of sources was later posted, but in a different section below the original discussion. Since the discussion and data points appear in different sections also separated by time, I wonder to what degree that table of sources answered your concerns about notability. Link --Ihaveabutt (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I honestly haven't had much free time lately so I really haven't looked at it much. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Little Walter

I saw the movie in the theater, and as far as I can tell, that isn't true. There are a lot of things in the movie that are changed from real life. Len Chess didn't die a block away from Chess Records, he died a couple of years later. Little Walter didn't die as a result of the fight, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I listened to the DVD commentary and watched the extras and according to the movie's director, the scene is based on a "legend". It didn't seem like they did much research (or perhaps they couldn't find much) to determine whether it was true or not. Yes, after doing a little more research, it appears they weren't too concerned about factual accuracy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been a fan of blues music since 1971 (but not much about Little Walter), and I don't remember hearing it before. Also, in the movie Muddy and Willie Dixon went to success in Europe after Chess Records had been sold and Len Chess died. I think that actually happened a couple of years before the company was sold. But it makes a better movie the way it was presented. Bubba73 (talk), 17:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive at AE911

Quest Your comments, if they continue to cherry pick, are disruptive. Your comments still ignore the original question's data, that the media view certain professions as an asset, not a weakness (KMPH Fox 26). You haven't answered the question of whether one source should be censored from our knowledge (the media link) in order to support the quote you defended (an organization's website). Furthermore, we need to be able to expect that editors here can be trusted to know that what architects do is not in western society invoked as a professional weakness in this context. Can the organization's site be reliable and "nutcases" (your word) at the same time? Again, the problem is WP:NPOV. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT is not a poster board to cherry pick data selectively favored. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

To which edit are you referring? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the purpose of that AETruth section (POV: Gage, etc) is to attempt some greater consensus or forestall editing war on VErbal's (I think his) quote regarding "experience and training". I am finding it harder to trust you are not trying to be disruptive, if - as you say at this point - you have little or no view on the matter of the quote's inclusion. Since you have made several comments in the section, I hope you will consider showing that you do appreciate the purpose of the section pertains to the question of the forementioned quote. Using the term "nutcase" to characterize the group about which we are writing in no clear way points to what your concrete suggestion is for the article, unless one infers what you were suggesting in light of your other comments (that the quote might be found in an archive). --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, your view and your opinion of the group about which we are writing, with all due respect, is very hard to take seriously when your comments use terms like "nutcase" to characterize the group being written about. I don't blame, nor am I surprised by, ordinary citizens on the street that may quickly embrace such vague assumptions (if they rely on emotionalistic editorial writers in US and UK media). But a WP editor ought to consider that such invective is often smear attack language, this way: it is so vague it can be neither confirmed nor disconfirmed, and yet simultaneously it has almost no meaning. Such inflammatory rhetoric does not engender credibility in the WP editor that uses it. On the contrary, extremely vague (almost childish) words like "nutcase" are an easy tool of those who might wish to inflame attitudes by appealing to emotions rather than evidence and reason. Or, should I imagine you were just being ironic, and were just uncommittedly echoing the attack language of specific emotion-based writers in the US and UK? --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone stole my idea

I was thinking of doing this myself, but someone beat me to the punch! Bentham Open has agreed to publish a nonsensical article written by a computer program, claiming that the manuscript was peer reviewed and requesting that the "authors" pay $800 in "open access fees." The editor of the journal is resigning: "I will definitely resign. Normally I see everything that comes through. I don't know why I did not see this...The peer review didn't work". So much for it's reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute

Hey A Quest For Knowledge, I'm wondering if you could weigh in on this dispute between me and another editor:

It started here:

• Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society#.22Violent.22_direct_action.3F

And spilled over here:

1. Misplaced Pages:Editor_assistance/Requests#.22violent_direct_action.22_is_misleading
2. Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Fhue_and_User:NRen2k5
3. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fhue

— NRen2k5, 23:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth#Independent_secondary_sources
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM&feature=player_embedded