User talk:Ireneshusband

This user may have left Wikipedia. Ireneshusband has not edited Wikipedia since 30 March 2008. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hello, Ireneshusband, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair 05:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hidden agenda with my welcome. It's a welcome to you to say simply, thanks for coming. Wikipedia even has it's very own Welcoming committee if you're interested in welcoming others once you're familiar with how things operate. With so much information about, new users find it helpful to have handy links provided to them before they can make too many mistakes. And besides, we like to let new users know there's somebody else around to help out. It can get crazy out there :) -- Longhair 05:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd better point out here, in case anybody gets the wrong idea, that the "hidden agenda" I asked about was whether the welcome message was a hint that I hadn't read the howtos and guidelines well enough (which, to be fair, I haven't yet). I should also say that I didn't use the phrase "hidden agenda" as such (I think what I actually said was "tactful hint"). I hope this doesn't sound too touchy. It's just that I'm paranoid about sounding paranoid. -- Ireneshusband 06:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. One of the important policies at Wikipedia is Assume Good Faith. It works just as much in your favour as it does in mine. :) -- Longhair 06:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember getting annoyed at the person who first put this on my talk page, because I thought he was being demeaning or whatever. :P .V. 17:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just got your message. I see what your talking about and I'll look at those articles you pointed out. I hope to talk to you soon! (p.s.-one reason the CT article is so heavily guarded by Official POV dogmatists is because they consider it to be a "lever") SkeenaR 06:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read The Creature From Jekyll Island? As well, there are books written by academic insiders like Tragedy and Hope I've read the first one. I don't think they are what you had in mind, but The Creature From Jekyll Island might have some valuable information, as it covers much ground beyond the Federal Reserve. It is also very well sourced. SkeenaR08:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got me kind of curious about this. I'm kinda tied up as far as having a look into this stuff for a day or two, but there seems to be a fair bit of writing on it.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=conformism+conspiracy+theory&btnG=Search

Here are some titles that I found within one of the links:

Mark Fenster, Conspiracy Theory: Secrecy and Power in American Culture (University of Minnesota Press).

Timothy Melley, Empire of Conspiracy: The Culture of Conspiracy in Postwar America (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000).

George Marcus, ed., Paranoia Within Reason: A Casebook on Conspiracy as Explanation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).

Jodi Dean, Aliens In America: Conspiracy Cultures from Outerspace to Cyberspace (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998).

You would enjoy reading that Jekyll Island book. He says "Conspiracies are the norm, rather than the exception. History is an unbroken chain of one conspiracy after another" and follows up with a ton of sourced information most people I'm sure would find shocking. It's really interesting. I'll talk to you soon. --SkeenaR 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks, I also value your feedback. SkeenaR 05:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you were right about the Conspiracy theory article needing some cleanup and pov neutralizing. Maybe you have some good contributions to add, and you could have some fun with this too. I'm just attempting to improve the introduction right now. SkeenaR 09:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a significant change to Polyarchy. Please read, edit, and support me against possible attempts to revert. --Drono 05:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you on the suggested page move. I think a few other pages with the same problems in naming that you may be interested in are Allegations of Israeli apartheid and Islamic extremist terrorism. The latter is up for AFD. Regards, KazakhPol 21:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your proposed title, but unfortunately for this one, it will also be a long, hard battle. KazakhPol 21:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tireless efforts on the renaming effort. I'm in agreement with your proposal, and your sound arguments. While i'm certainly not new to WP, I'm somewhat new as an editor. What / who is the gatekeeper to prevent the move from proceeding? Who actually makes the 'move'.. is that someone with special admin rights ?Gindo! 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If this change does happen, could we use 9/11 alternative theories instead of 9/11 (alternative theories)? Just a small point and I created one as a redirect earlier. --Wildnox(talk) 00:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid further clutter.

I am offended that you see me as a "debunker". I'm pretty sure you called me this only because you disagree with me and have no other knowledge involving me. I'm in no way a debunker, and I actually happen to believe one of the theories(forknowledge as the article calls it) and see some of the others as reletively possible(even though I think most are a bit of stretch).

I have not ignored the policies as you claim, I addressed then when I said, on two occasions, that I do not believe they apply here because I do not see the phrase as being a serious insult or violation of NPOV. The google test was never mentioned as a be all and end all, but rather a supplement to the rest of my arguement, which is how it is ment to be used. I don't think you can say that the sources I provided were all implying falsehood(especially not the one from 9/11 truth), with the exception of the popular mechanics article. I also don't think that there is any "leap of faith" involved here, they refered to theories involving 9/11 as "conspiracy theories". No other special criteria is called for.

I wanted to end the debate not because I thought I made neither, either, or both, of us right, but because this has degraded into an utter quagmire, which I usually try to avoid at all costs. It's also that I hate leaving a debate early, but also hate having a debate take up 80% of my time on wiki. --Wildnox(talk) 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through this talk page again I see now that I owe Wildnox a belated apology, which I have left at his talk page. Ireneshusband 05:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the apology. I'm also sorry this debate got out of hand. I'm a little bit surprised whenever a user chooses to apologize; I'm usually just happy when this doesn't happen. That being said, I don't think that many users were guilty of misconduct in the end. I think there was only one user who not only crossed the line but also made no attempt to go back. I won't name a name, most likely he is the same user you would consider to have been the worst offender. I also don't think there were any sockpuppets involved in the discussion, as the majority of editors were long established, though I admit that is never a sure thing. If you disagree with me on the level of misconduct or possibility of sockpuppetry, and you think there is anything serious enough to warrant the actions of admins, feel free to make a note at WP:AN/I. Also, sorry if any of this is poorly worded or confusing, It's roughly 1:48 so I'm not in the best of writing mind. --Wildnox(talk) 06:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont we focus on identifying individual points of objection at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Why_dont_the_Oppose_and_Agree_camps.3F instead of having long winded debates that cover 2 or 3 subjects The we we know everyones objections either way, we can work out a compromise on each point with a view to reaching a consensus. "Snorkel | Talk" 09:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the article talk page, I'm removing myself from debate and instead am only going to add sources to the discussion, since nobody else has done so yet. These are a few that may be of use to you, since you haven't cited a source calling the term derogatory or using "alternative theories" yet.

U.S. Department of State Washington Post - Both using both terms in one article.

International Herald Tribune skeptic.com - Both describe using "alternative"

IL- has a picture with CNN using the term "alternative theories" in a poll

Denver post USA Today- Call the term derogatory

--Wildnox(talk) 04:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ireneshusband. I realise that some of my remarks on the talk page of that 9/11 article may be a little biting. It is not my intention to cause personal upset, but I do believe strongly in shooting a straight arrow and not diluting my sincerity simply in order to get along. That being said, I apologise if you are insulted by my remarks — I shall be making the most Herculean of efforts to be more civil in future engagements. Rosenkreuz 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment on my talk page. Rosenkreuz 18:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would do better to stick to policy arguments, and avoid getting into disputes with editors on the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page. It's a lot more persuasive. Morton Devonshire^Yo 02:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morton Devonshire not only failed to stand up to the people who were using personal insults and threats against me, but he joined in with them himself. Given the circumstances, the above comment is itself staggeringly insulting. Ireneshusband 03:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helping yourself here. Morton Devonshire^Yo 03:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand perfectly what you are trying to do. Ireneshusband 04:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the news that broke on Wikipedia a bit back (there's been a tremendous amount of work to suppress it), but you should check out this from the village pump. It may seem like you're a minority on this, but your not. These disruptive administrators are paid to make you feel that way. Persistence is our best weapon. If you like, we'd be honored to add your name to the list of minutemen (they shouldn't block you just for being added to the list). --Interrogation 20:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but maybe that's just what they want you to think...who can you trust? Where can you run? Rosenkreuz 20:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no trouble deciding whether or not to trust you, Rosenkreuz. Your intentions are transparent. Ireneshusband 07:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you have nothing to do with Interrogation or any of the long list of socks that are popping up in a similar vein recently. Doing what you think is right is noble, but making blind accusations in a large-scale POV war is not. His claims of "confrimed federal contractors" and supposedly paid admins is nothing more than a list of users who ever disagreed with him. Please, keep speaking your mind and contributing to wikipedia constructively, and don't enter into this foolishness. --Wildnox(talk) 20:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by banned user removed. MER-C 01:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed interesting. But is this a typical occurrence? Ireneshusband 01:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by Mer-C, aka Cplot, was removed without my consent. ireneshusband (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern, Wildnox, and I believe it to be sincere. However, whether or not the people mentioned in the list are US government contractors, I still find it remarkable that most of the editors whose conduct I have found frustrating and distressing in recent days are among those listed. That the fate of User:Zen-master has been brought up against other people as a threat, just as it was, in a completely unjustified and unprovoked way against me, is also something I find very interesting. Threats of this kind make a mockery of the principle of assuming good faith on the part of other editors. The very least that can be said of the situation is that there seems to be a problem of bullying by editors who have come to believe that they are, in Wikipedia terms, above the law. Ireneshusband 07:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make self clear. I'm not going to say that there aren't alot of POV editors here on wikipedia, there are many and most of the editors on that list are among them. What I will say is that I see no reason to think that they are government contrators. I think the cplot line of socks is hurting the cause you support much more than helping it, by making it seem that supporters are trolls and vandals rather than serious contributers. That's the foolishness I'm worried about. --Wildnox(talk) 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already said, I don't condone the use of sockpuppets. However I must also say in Cplot's defense that the he isn't making much effort to conceal the sockpuppetry. It is when sockpuppets are used to stack votes or disrupt discussions that I really get riled, and I am determined that such practices should be put to an end. Ireneshusband 01:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Interrogation, for drawing my attention to this. Of course it would be inappropriate for me to comment directly on the discussion you refer to, but I do take it for granted that moneyed interests of various sorts will attempt to manipulate Wikipedia and that we should be on our guard against this. It would be insane not to be. I also take it for granted that some of their tactics may well be very devious and very effective. This issue has been on my mind a great deal in the past week or so.

As to the kinds of people who might be employed to do this, I think that the recent book by the highly respected criminal psychologist Robert Hare, entitled Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work (cowritten with Paul Babiak) is very informative in this regard. According to Hare, around 1% of people (at a very conservative estimate) are psychopaths. Very few of these have the same murderous tastes as Karla Homolka or Ian Brady, but many of them do get a great kick out of manipulating situations and messing with people's heads. Moreover they are often able to do this easily because of their extraordinary gift for and delight in lying.

In between the factual content of Hare and Babiak's book is a fictional account of a psychopath who infiltrates a marketing department by plagiarising other people's work and playing colleagues off against each other. Just as it seems a couple of his managers have compiled enough evidence to expose him, we find that he is playing golf with the company president while those same managers are being escorted out of the building. This is a danger that Wikipedia, like any organisation, has to be able to deal with. The difference between Wikipedia and the fictional company in Hare and Babiak's cautionary tale is that Wikipedia itself has no money. The only money to be made out of Wikipedia is in shilling, which is why I think that any psychopathic individuals who do infiltrate it are probably employed by somebody to do so.

I was once a director of a housing co-op and we had to deal with somebody who, in hindsight, I strongly believe to have been a psychopath. She cost us a lot of money. The reason I think she was a psychopath is because, despite her apparently reasonable and pleasant demeanour, she couldn't quite fake it 100%. There was something glib about the way she talked, something contemptuous and callous about the way she looked at you. At times she would appear to be angry to the point of being abusive (which is how she bullied people into giving up a lot of money), but then she would turn round and behave as if absolutely nothing had happened. These are the kinds of people we should look out for.

It is also important to understand the weaknesses of psychopaths. One is that many of them have very poor impulse control, which is one of the reasons why there are so many of them in prison. However this may not be true in all cases. Nevertheless, if you prod them the right way (or at least as far as is possible within the rules of Wikipedia) they might, once in a blue moon, do something to give themselves away.

The other weakness I believe is significant is that they not only have no respect for truth, they have no understanding of the concept; they lack insight. If you stick to your guns and base your arguments firmly and unrelentingly on evidence, Wikipedia policy and reason, they will not be able to respond in kind. All they will be able to do is to throw back a few fine sounding platitudes or to parrot an argument they have heard from someone else. In my past dealings with such people it has often been my own argument, and even my own style of words that I have heard thrown back at me, with only the names or a few key words changed.

I should, though, add a couple of words of caution.

One is that not all dishonest and manipulative people are psychopaths and that likewise, not all people who behave in an aggressive or irrational way are necessarily psychopaths. The former may sometimes make even better and more dangerous liars because they do possess empathy and insight. The latter may simply be very angry or upset rather than coldly malicious—psychopaths do not experience or understand true anger, love or fear. For instance I believe that most of the irrational or even hateful comments one is liable to see on talk pages related to deeply contentious topics such as antisemitism are expressions of genuine human feeling and should be respected as such.

The other is that an attempt to identify and root out psychopathically malicious individuals can have undesirable consequences and therefore we should take great care. In Robert Hare's earlier book, Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us (1993), he was deeply scathing about the activities of James Grigson, a psychiatrist who would testify in death-penalty cases in Texas that the defendant was a psychopath and would definitely kill again. In addition to condemning Grigson's blatant professional irresponsibility, Hare noted that it was his extraordinary "charisma" that swayed the juries to accept his bogus clinical judgements. Hare then drew attention to the remarkable degree of self-assurance that Grigson demonstrated, his apparent inability even to contemplate the possibility that he might be wrong. Hare was obviously trying to hint strongly at something, because all the qualities he noted in this court-appointed scourge of psychopaths were themselves some of the hallmarks of a psychopath. Grigson was, incidentally, expelled from the American Psychiatric Association in 1995.

Hervey Cleckley realised that, even though you can rarely discern a psychopath by what they say at any particular time, you can spot them if you observe them for a long period of time because their behaviour never matches up to their words. If you watch them long enough they will give themselves away, although there is, unfortunately, no guarantee that everyone will be able or willing to see it. Ireneshusband 07:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by banned user removed. MER-C 01:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was removed without my consent. ireneshusband (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors, and even moderators, may be

• psychopaths
• government agents
• stubborn people in denial

Considering there are about 1 million editors, I am absolutely sure some of us are either agents or psychopaths (or both, hihi). However, I choose to refrain from speculating on that in individual cases, since my experience is, even in my private life, it's so easy to mis-judge other people. It's even easier to be wrong here on wikipedia, where we cannot see of hear eachother. Just the words on the screen. Therefor I stick to the wiki-rule of "assume good faith". Not because I'm convinced we all are of good faith, but because I'm convinced I won't be able to tell for certain. The only solution is stick to the rules.

Talking about rules...

In the new year I'm anxious to end my wikibreak and see whether we can reach some kind of understanding here: Wikipedia talk:911 POV disputes. Could save us all a lot of time and energy.

— Xiutwel (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nile ain't just a river in Egypt...
Experience has proven that for about 50% of the population it is very hard to see or accept the obvious: that our governments seem to be steered against their own. I live in Holland, and while all politicians lament greenhouse-warming, measures to counter it are abolished yearly.

The Dutch government seems to have sanctioned U.S.-torture policies. We have become what we sought to combat. Perhaps the average Jihad terrorist is a moral being compared with the average War-on-Terrorist?

I believe the main reason for 911 denial is the fear to loose all ground. To accept that everything you believed in, is a lie, makes people very, very afraid. I think the 911 movement should do better to combat fear, than to push their evidence. The picture is already crystal-clear for all who dare to look. Wikipedia isn't needed for that, though it pains me that wikipedia equates reliable sources with official sources, since that throws away a lot of jewels of knowledge, and lets in heaps of garbage. — Xiutwel (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to ireneshusband for cleaning up sarcasm on Zionist Occupied Government, and of course, your continuing and tireless work in the highly-contentious (and often daunting) area of 9/11 conspiracy theories. :) Keep up the good work! .V. 01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! My first barnstar! I want to make an acceptance speech. I better not. :-) Ireneshusband 01:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out which part of MONGO's AfD nomination for The New Pearl Harbor attacked the book's notability in any way. Until you find where he says that, your comments on his talk page are baseless, incivil, and assume bad faith. Single books by notable authors are generally merged and redirected to the author anyway, to avoid spreading the article content too thin/duplicating content. --tjstrf talk 12:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of you voted for merging. You voted for deletion. Your intention was to destroy the content of the article rather than to improve it. The New Pearl Harbor presents a detailed set of arguments - more than enough to justify an article in its own right. This is particularly so since the David Ray Griffin article also has to deal with his work as a philosopher. In any case, by the objective criteria of notability as defined in Wikipedia guidelines, the book is plainly worthy of an article in its own right simply by virtue of having been written by a noteworthy author. Therefore it should be to have one. Do you dispute this? Ireneshusband 18:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert,

In regards to your message, and the AfD in general: I honestly can't even remember writing this article! It must have been from either one of my periodic forays into Wikipedia:Requested articles, or from my reading of the series of articles on the 9/11 Truth Movement. In many of the Requested articles subject pages, the user who posts the redlink also includes a good amount of information to "seed" a potential article. I just have no idea. I don't mind you bringing my name up, but I think it should be clear that I wasn't paid to write this article (or any of the others I've started). Looking at it now, I do think the article has notability and POV problems. I may just nominate it for AfD myself, actually. Thanks for the notification, I appreciate it. --Fsotrain⁰⁹ 17:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks a lot--in the 14 months I have edited, this is my first barnstar. Best wishes sir, if you ever need anything, let me know ! Happy Old Christmas, Travb (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to be rewarded sometimes. :) .V. 06:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

congrats with your barnstar!

If you have any suggestions on how to proceed with "my" Oklahoma City bombing controversy, please let us know. — Xiutwel (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• see User_talk:Xiutwel#re:_Oklahoma — Xiutwel (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, some editors love to say that we are anti-blah, you cant even say the word. They dont realize that some humans actually really believe in truth and balance. Because they are so without these elements, they dont understand the word. I was just looking at Mel Gibson and the tags associated with him from one camp, same with anyone who whispers certain words, fair is fair. So why dont all the anti-Black and anti-Islamic people get similar tags? and why arent there special tags like anti-Black, anti-Islamic, anti-Chinese ;these are not minority groups? this isnt about love or hate, pro or against, it is about balance and truth. And what i see on wiki is sickening Racism by country and most editors sit down, even admins, see this stuff and turn a blind eye. --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 22:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Zionist Occupation Government, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible..V. -- (^Talk_Email) 21:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Zionist Occupation Government. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I noted that the interesting article about Mattenenglisch contains rules that are in disagreement with the German Mattenenglisch article. According to the de:Mattenenglisch the first letter is "i", not "l". Can you please check this out? -Thanks. Ekem 13:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're getting anywhere I would like to be with wikipedia. I fear it will increasingly be a free (no charge) but not free (self-censored) accumulation of selected knowledge. How do you feel for starting over from scrap? Please respond at: Wikipedia talk:911 POV disputes#next.

— Xiutwel (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a huge comment there. Maybe I can help LeaNder 20:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

you might want to look at the list I (we) are compiling at: Talk:9/11#NPOV / missing_facts. I appreciate any addition or criticism you can make. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, survival of the most obnoxious is the rule on Wikipedia. Apostle12 (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but please do not misrepresent what I said either. I said: "It's as valid as anything that reliable sources (especially the media) refer to these as "conspiracy theories". It's just another idicator that the most used and widely-known term is indeed "conspiracy theories." Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as saying that reliable sources should be the reason, this is not the case, and I'm sorry if it came across as such. I mean to say that the most common name (conspiracy theories) should be used and the fact that reliable sources like the media employ it only serves to support the argument. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it could go either way. Like I said before, I was merely refering to using reliable sources (mainly, the media) as one of many indicators of what the most common name might be, but it's certainly not an all-deciding factor in determining that for our articles. I think that's what you're saying too, correct? Thanks for clarifying, by the way. Okiefromokla ^questions? 07:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. I think I see your point now. And I agree that for the reasons you say, news media or other sources aren't necessaily an indicator of usage, but when 99% of media uses "conspiracy theories" there is some merit to it. Again, I agree that reliable sources in themselves are not definitive indicators of common name per Wikipedia policy. But we should not discount the overwhelming usage of "conspiracy theories" by the media all together. Okiefromokla ^questions? 07:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help me out if I'm still misunderstanding you here. Okiefromokla ^questions? 07:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are almost in agreement here. The difficulty with this issue is that there are a number of competing demands to be reconciled. We are not just talking about the tension between the need for titles to be easy for lay people to use and the need for them not to be judgemental or offensive. We are also talking about the tension between the various attributes necessary for ease of use. A widely recognised term might, as is being argued in the present case, also be ambiguous. What I am saying is that because frequency of use, as measured by a google test, is generally a good basis for naming an article, we should not go against that custom unless there are strong reasons for doing so. My position is that there are indeed such strong reasons and that any merit that the present name has are far outweighed by its deficiencies. I also maintain that the suggested new name would pose no significant difficulties for a lay person. Therefore I do not feel able to say that the current name has much merit. I hope this has helped clear things up. If you want to discuss this any further, it would probably be best to do it within the discussion itself rather than on our talk pages. ireneshusband (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you disagree with my interpretation of Wikipedia's policies. However, your disagreement does not prove me wrong and I stand by my comments. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever bringing up WP:NAME in my arguments. I'm simply arguing that WP:RS and WP:OR apply to article names as well as content. Now that you bring it up though, I took a close look at Naming Conventions. Since there's no category that specifically relates to this topic, I thought Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) was the closest. Please note these three guidelines:

1. If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.
2. If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.
3. If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications.

It seems clear to me that conditions 1 & 2 are satisfied by the term "Conspiracy Theories". If you would like to carry on the argument that that is neither the common nor generally accepted word, be my guest.

On another note, I'm sure this is not intentional, but your messages tend to come across as condescending and pedantic. You might want to consider your wording in the future. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware that you have chosen to invoke WP:RS and WP:OR and to ignore WP:NAME and Wikipedia:Naming conflict. What's done is done. What matters is that if you continue to do so in order to have others believe that what "reliable sources" call something is supposed to be relevant to the naming of articles, then you will be knowingly misrepresenting wikipedia policy. I really don't care whether you think I am being pedantic or condescending. I have simply said what needed to be said. As for the other points you have raised, I do not want to carry on a private debate with you about matters that are already being discussed elsewhere. ireneshusband (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mediating over at that case, along with Seddon69. I think condensing down on some of the request details would be a good idea: much of the discussion (before it was archived) was revolving around editors instead of issues, and it may look polarizing as it stands. This is completely up to you, of course, but I think it would be a sign of good faith if the details were only about the very basic issue at hand. If you like the idea, but don't want to do it, I can also condense it down.
Just a friendly suggestion... I think it will help smooth over some editor conflicts right from the beginning. Tell me what you think! Xavexgoem (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleland wrote a very good request, and I replaced the filing. I hope you don't mind; many editors had felt the previous one was too inflammatory. I would ask permission first, but I was afraid you could be gone, and the article being as controversial as it is... I wanted people to come to the case page looking at a fresh start. Please knock me on the head with a trout if this was wrong! Xavexgoem (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi hubby of Irene,

I've found that if you really follow the help and policy posted on Wiki, the bullies will back off. After reading so many of your very well written discussion contributions, I have to say I think they suckered you into red herrings every now and then. I mean, the issues they got you aruguing about were important, but if you yielded to them a bit and backed up into WP help and WP policy, you might have been able to make a little more headway.

Anyway, I feel like my battles against bias and "in-the-box" protectionism and head-in-the-sand syndrome are progressing. Dscotese (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trolling on editors' talk pages. This edit is completely unacceptable. Haemo has done a lot for this project, and he deserves more respect than that. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reprimanding an editor for unacceptable conduct is not trolling by any stretch of the imagination. I suggest you brush up on your wikipedia policy before you start throwing threats around. ireneshusband (talk) 10:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My patience with you has been exhausted. Please respond here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your chums started the edit war. I am well aware of the 3 revert rule. I am also well aware that you left this message for no other reason than to intimidate me. Do not troll me again. ireneshusband (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this interesting. The Sydney Morning Herald is a Newspaper of record. Cheers. Wayne (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ireneshusband,

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) 17:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 § 19:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section you added from the evidence page of the case, since it contained numerous personal attacks and incivilities. You are welcome to post evidence for the case, but you must refrain from attacking your fellow editors when doing so.

Please state matters factually, supported by diffs, and without interjecting opinion as to the parties' motives or state or mind. In particular, calling anyone a liar is not productive and will not be tolerated.

I, and the other clerks, will expect you to remain on strictly civil terms on the case pages, and you will be blocked if you engage in further attacks.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee. 15:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept what you have said here entirely. I had been feeling under a lot of pressure and I completely lost it. I accept that my comments were, exactly as Haemo and some other editors who were on the receiving end of it have described it, a "bizarre rant". I shall shortly (within the next 24 hours) be making personal apologies to each of those editors who were its target.

One of the reasons I became so completely stressed out was that I found myself facing very serious charges in an arbitration process without really understanding how arbitration works. Therefore, as a practical measure to make sure I don't find myself in the same state of mind again, I shall follow travb's advice below and seek the help of an advocate. ireneshusband (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest:

1. You ask for a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADVOCATE.
2. You ask for a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user

Trav (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had enough.

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 15:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] 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) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Ireneshusband. Your tireless defense of wikipedia's ideals is missed. I wish you would consider coming back to wikipedia. This barnstar is way overdue. (travb/inclusionist from the Firestone/Liberia debate). Ikip (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]