User talk:Raquel Baranow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Number of the Beast[edit]

Hi! I have reverted your (repeated) addition of the remark about the translation of χάραγμα. Not only was it formulated in a manner inconsistent with WP:NPOV, but I also could not find any support for the claim in that lexicon. The website you provided was unhelpful (well, blatantly wrong and non-notable, actually). Please read WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:EL for more information. —xyzzyn 09:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That you know, or believe to know, something does not justify inclusion here. Restating your theory does not constitute an improvement. As for the reference I gave, please read it yourself before (falsely) asserting I had not read it.
Rev. 16:2 reads thusly:
In English, the translation looks like this:
Liddell and Scott state:
Liddell and Scott then give another translation, as ‘money’, as follows:
Feel free to look for the manuscript to which they refer by yourself. That website only gives its title as ‘P.Oxy. 1.32. Latin letter to a tribunus militum’; how you conclude from this that this translation could be better applied to the verse in question than the one explicitly given in the same entry is obscure to me.
Regardless, unless you can find a reliable source that has published your theory, it has no place in an encyclopedia, including this one. By the way, please do read the policies which I pointed out above.
xyzzyn 00:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it, look at the CONTEXT: "No one buys or sells (BUYS OR SELLS) without the MONEY of the beast on/in mind or hand." Liddell and Scott are telling the context of the words or the places they appear in documents under translations throughout the ages.

Antipater Thessalonicensis wrote at the same time as the Revelation was composed (66 AD) and POxy.144.6 was written in the Fourth Century AC, which means that the greek word χάραγμα meant MONEY at the time Revelations was written.

Liddel-Scott are only documenting how the word had meaning at the times specified. As you know, words change meanings over time. χάραγμα meant MONEY at the time the "revelation" was written.

The bible "scholars" mistranslated the word χάραγμα like they do with the Aramaic word Mammon,which is only translated correctly in the New Oxford English Bible. (Or "Logos" is NOT translated as Logic in John 1:1.)

Jesus-Christ (if he existed) said, "You can't serve God & MONEY [mammon is an Aramaic word for money] ... but the Pharisees, who loved money (philarguron) heard all this and scoffed." Like you're scoffing too. (See Luke 16.)

Jesus also told his disciples, like the Buddha did, to not carry and gold, silver, script or brass in their purse.

Jesus also said, "Who's picture is on the $$$?" Caesar's!

Also, xyzzy_n, I am NOT skilled at formatting html.

You allow the Jehovah's Witnesses and several others to voice their opinion you should NOT censor mine just because I am self-published.

Please don't censor my opinion: look at the context. χάραγμα was known as money when Revelation was written. (2. stamped money, coin, AP5.29 (Antip.Thess.) <-- Antip.Thess. lived at the time the Revelation was written.

Peace, Love & Truth, Raquel

I don’t need to ‘get it’ or ‘look at the CONTEXT’; my earlier comment on your theory was a matter of courtesy, not related to the article (and I will not spend any more time on the theory than absolutely necessary). It is policy on Wikipedia to present topics on which there is no definitive point of view (i. e. just about everything outside of science) by presenting the points of view proportionally to their support. This means that the JWs’ position gets a mention, because they are a fairly large and reasonably well known group and some opinions of people who are not by themselves known are mentioned because they seem to be supported by reasonably notable organisations, while your view, which is your research, published on your homepage, fails the reliability check and stays out of the article.
For your information, I neither allow nor censor anything; however, I do try to ensure that articles which I edit comply with Wikipedia’s policies on content. Currently, I neither see any way to have your view in the article without it breaching policy nor any need to tolerate such a breach.
Please read WP:NOT and find a more worthwhile way to contribute to Wikipedia (or promote your theory elsewhere; apparently you have already discovered Usenet, which, I think, is far better suited for your purposes). —xyzzyn 22:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, xyzzy_n, you DO need to look at the context and the definition of chargma. I may not have a following like the Jehovah's Witnesses do but I'm right and you ARE a Pharissitical censor of the truth!

I'll bet you hide your theory in the page somewhere. Like, why do these people get their theory in and not me? Who the hell are they?!

  • Keith Krell interprets the mark as a requirement for all commerce to mean that the mark might actually be an object with the function of a credit card.[13]
  • Steven D. Miller proposes that the mark of the beast may refer to a social security number or card.[14]
  • Terry Watkins supposes the mark to be a microchip or barcode in or on the human body.[15]

What good are their references? My reference comes from the Unabridged Greek-English Lexicon by Lidell and Scott!

Peace & Love, Raquel

No, it doesn’t (and truth is not a standard for inclusion). —xyzzyn 06:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Money of the beast makes sense to me mate. Best bet is getting in touch with biblical scholars, theologians, and classicists and seeing if you can get an article published in an academic journal on the subject. Then, reference that article on Wikipedia, and go over the heads of the snotty people on this website. 109.151.23.46 (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

My reference to the context and definition of Charagma = MONEY comes from the Unabridged greek-English Lexicon by Liddell & Scott. You can see a JPEG image of the definition on my flickr-photos and,here's an online version of the definition of the word, χάραγμα, which means MONEY, here's another online Liddel-Scott reference to Charagma.

You don't care about Truth, like a Pharisee you crucify the Logos-Logic of God!

The Liddell & Scott Lexicon is a dictionary, which tells the context of words. Nearly all bibles translate χάραγμα as "Mark" 'cause they don't know any better (they had abridged dictionaries or they didn't have a good Lexicon), they're ignorant or afraid of the truth! Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Money of the beast makes sense to me mate. Best bet is getting in touch with biblical scholars, theologians, and classicists and seeing if you can get an article published in an academic journal on the subject. Then, reference that article on Wikipedia, and go over the heads of the snotty people on this website. 109.151.23.46 (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


New Section

Context & Definition of Xαραγμα / "'Mark' of Commerce" = MONEY[edit]

Under the subject heading "Mark of Commerce" the definition of Xαραγμα has other meanings besides "Mark." If U look at this reference from an Unabridged Greek-English Lexicon, U can see that is also means, MONEY or coin. Hence: "No one buys and sells without the MONEY of the beast." Nero's face was impressed on the coins. The "Revelation" was written around 66 A.D. at time Nero lived, the Jews revolted against the Romans and the Jews started coining their own money. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning to provide an opening paragraph to this section to give the full definition of Xαραγμα with all it's meanings (see link to unabridged Greek Lexicon, above). I'll include the context ("buy and sell") as well as references to Jesus. (1) Telling his disciples to carry money (MT 10:9), (2) Jesus upsetting the tables of the moneychangers (JN 2:14), (3) Jesus outside the temple-treasury talking about how difficult it is for rich people to enter the Kingdom of God (MK 12:41), (4) Jesus saying, "You can't serve God and money" (NEV) . . . "but the Pharisees, who loved money heard all this and scoffed" (LK 16), (5) Jesus and the poll-tax/Tribute money, "Whose picture is on the money?" (Caesar's) (MT 22:19) (MT 17:24) Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Problematic edits[edit]

Hey: Apologies, on looking back into this, I do see some seriously problematic edits from you... but they're from 2005, hardly worth a concern now. I've reviewed all your edits from this year and it seems to me that your edits from this period are okay. So I'm going to unblock you to file your username change request. But it is worth reminding you that despite your own personal observations, Wikipedia article content must be based on reliable sources and presented in proportion to their prominence. Mangojuicetalk 18:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Allowing name change to User:Raquel Baranow. Please put in the change request at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible.

Request handled by: Mangojuicetalk 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thanks, Mangojuice! . . . I just submitted a new username and, yes, the REAL problems I had were waaay back in 2005. If any administrator wants to edit my page to remove any of the above related to this block it would be appreciated. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You may remove remove the block notices yourself since you are unblocked. Currently the duplicate template causes this page to be in Requests for unblock and should be removed. Thanks.—Sandahl (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I had some concerns with the amount of information you were displaying on your userpage. It's generally not safe to publish that much personally-identifiable information online. I've removed it and asked for it to be deleted permanently. I hope you don't take offence; I'm just concerned about safety. //roux   08:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Who did U ask to have it removed permanently? (Are U talking behind my back?) I don't mind . . . thx 4 being concerned but I am a public figure . . . very popular where I live. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I asked here. Also please do not edit comments made by other users. //roux   20:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The "edit comments made by other users" Roux is referring to is me italicizing some of their 14 March comment, above, which appears to be re-written now. Whatever. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I rewrote it back to the way I originally wrote it. There's no 'whatever' about this, it's really simple: do not edit comments made by others except very basic housekeeping (indenting if they forgot to), or removing egregious personal attacks if they won't do so themselves. I hope that is clear. //roux   21:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, okay, I get it, whatever, lol but don't forget, U started this discussion by removing personal material from MY UserPage. Thx, I learned my lesson! :) Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

ARB9/11[edit]

Hi. This is a friendly notification that all 9/11 articles are under general sanctions. Please be especially careful before editing further there to familiarize yourself with WP:ARB9/11. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 16:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove what I wrote about Controlled Demolition. I reworded the Talk someone removed and would like to add this reference: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermobarics.html Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
That's not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a chatroom for discussing fringe ideas. If something hasn't been reported about in reliable sources, it is not relevant to Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 17:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The article is about a "fringe" idea. The source I quoted is relevent to the article about Controlled Demolition. The NIST investigation is "propaganda," the NIST conclusions are the Government's POV. I, and MANY other people believe the government is covering up the truth! Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope. It doesn't work that way. The article is about how mainstream sources cover a fringe idea. It is not a WP:COATRACK for bringing in all sorts of original research and unverified material from primary sources. Jehochman Talk 18:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Raquel - please see our policies on original research and verifyable and reliable sources. Also, one of our core values is that we retain a neutral point of view in all matters.

Your opinion and contributions here are non-neutral, are original research, are not published in reliable sources.

Wikipedia is not a place to fight external fights such as attempting to raise public visibility of fringe theories. You yourself know and acknowledge that your opinions are not mainstream. Attempting to use Wikipedia to soapbox, or promote those theories is also a violation of our policies.

If you can review and abide by those policies you are welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. If you reject those policies, then Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for your contributions.

It's up to you to chose whether to abide by our goals and core values. We are not the thing you seem to think we should be in this case - we're an encyclopedia, not those other things. If you can contribute under our policy to the encyclopedia then please do. If not, please don't force us to block you from editing permanently. Just walk away from participation here with no hard feelings.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

All I'm trying to do is improve articles here that appear to be one-sided and untrue. I'm discussing them on Talk Pages. It's NOT just my opinion that the Government isn't a reliable source when they have an interest in covering-up their mis-deeds. Why can't U ppl here at Wiki discuss things civily without censorship or banning?! I'm kinda new here.

U keep saying "reliable source" but that is a very subjective term: Government is NOT always a "reliable source."

If U guys leave me alone and didn't erase stuff I write, like at the Talk Page for Controlled Demolition at the WTC, everything would be alright. I reworded the stuff someone erased and included MANY references . . . U or someone else can sort them out as "reliable" or not . . . I was merely suggesting that the Government's explaination of the tiny debris pile and several inches of toxic dust throughout Manhattan is rediculous! A more likely explaination is a Thermobaric bomb. If U Google, "Thermobaric" + "wtc" U will see many "reliable sources."

But of course . . . it would be sooooo much easier 4 U editors to ban and censor me! Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Raquel - you're missing the point.
You need to find a reliable source (published, peer reviewed, etc) that states that someone has looked at Thermobarics in detail and feels that they explain the WTC collapses.
One website out there saying so, if that website isn't run by someone with demolitions or explosives or forensic engineering background, is not good enough. The website you described is not.
Just because some person out there mentioned Thermobarics and the WTC collapses does not mean that it's sufficiently well documented to appear in Wikipedia. There have been single websites that claimed that UFOs caused the collapses - that there was a coverup of a hidden earthquake fault that caused the collapses - that there was a nuclear bomb stored in the WTC basement that caused the collapse. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, George, I get it . . . but it's obvious to anyone with an open mind that there were bombs in the WTCs. Look at the tiny debris pile at ground zero: what happened to the two 100-story WTCs? Answer: they were pulverized by bombs, hence the huge cloud of dust that left several inches of pulverized concrete, aesbestos and glass all over lower Manhattan. There is NO explaination for it on WIKI or in "reliable sources" that pass Ur test (but they do mine . . . how else can U explain it). What I wrote on the talk-page should remain until someone does write a "reliable source." There's ample evidence that many ppl have lung infections/disease now (I think there's a Wiki article on the respritory problems rescue workers are suffering now). We owe it to these ppl to explain why they are suffering! Just leave what I wrote there in the talk-page for other reasearchers to add to. What pissed me off is that someone erased what I wrote . . . I re-wrote it better and it should stay for the record . . . I have looked through the archives BEFORE I wrote my original piece. Others have mentioned "mini-Nukes" (in the archives), the current, best explaination is Thermobaric Bombs, which are not radioactive. Let's just leave it at that! Peace & Love. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
You may misunderstand the purposes of article talk pages. They are not there to put forward ideas or arguments about the subject of the talk page, but to discuss sources, formatting, whatever about the article page. You will often find where talk pages have been used as a soapbox for people's ideas, but that is definitely not their purpose and such edits may and often are removed. That's why someone removed it. Otherwise our talk pages could end up as a haven for just any idea and for arguments, just like any web forum and they are not web forums. dougweller (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought the purpose of the Discussion Pages was to improve the article. If the article does not explain or answer the topic the topic should be revised, especially if it is outdated. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting again for ease of typing)

Raquel - talking about the underlying facts... Take a look at Gravitational potential energy#Gravitational potential energy. A kilogram of material 415 meters above the ground has 4,070 joules of energy. A ton of material has aout 4.1 megajoules of energy - about the energy in a kilogram of TNT (4.2 Mj), which is enough to break a ton of concrete and steel into a bunch of small chunks of metal and a lot of concrete dust and small chunks.

The collapses didn't smash the buildings into tiny short stacks of material. You're forgetting the WTC basements. There was 60 feet of space under the plaza level, between bedrock and the plaza. The debris piles were about 70 feet tall on the average - sticking up a bit above ground level, but mostly compacted in the former basement spaces. That roughly 20:1 compaction lines up well with the former empty space fraction of the buildings - once collapsed, most of the air space between floors went away, but that's about it. Looking at the video, piles of wreckage, etc - they clearly weren't blown up by bombs. All the videos clearly show vertical or near vertical collapse of all the debris, other than small puffs of air and debris out the sides as floors were collapsed together. If there had been enough bombs to do serious damage, you'd have seen much more fragmentation and windows shattering out all sides. Thermobarics don't neatly sever structural columns - they overpressure a whole volume, blowing out windows, floors, ceilings. Windows would have been shattered outwards at very high velocity, you'd have seen visible shockwaves coming out the windows, etc. The points at which the collapse started clearly were within the floors which were on fire from the aircraft strikes. You can't use a thermobaric or FAE explosive in a room or space that's on fire - the fire will simply ignite or burn the explosive during the dispersal process, taking away the dispersed detonation behavior. You get a big puff of fire, not a detonation.

Even if the building had been completely wired up for a controlled demolition, assuming someone had planned that from the beginning, any explosive material available (and any reasonable wires for detonators for it) would have ignited and burned away from the surrounding fire. One could hypothesize that someone wired the building for demolitions and then exploded other parts of it - but the collapse behavior clearly was the blocks of the buildings above the fire zone falling down into the structure below them, indicating that whatever happened started right where the fires were hottest. There was far more energy and momentum in the falling structure than was needed to shatter and collapse the rest of the structure, at that point.

Simple collapse explains the debris pile and dust just fine. See for example [1] - the total gravitational energy in the 600,000 tons of structure and fittings per building was about equal to about 280 tons of TNT (per tower). That's plenty enough to squash the debris and break it into little pieces, and compact what's left into the former basement spaces.

This is intrinsic to highrise buildings. You get the same short debris pile with actual controlled demolitions, if you look at them. They use careful precutting and a few tens of kilograms of explosive to bring down a building that weighs tens of thousands of tons - and it collapses into a small pile of debris.

Fire and local structural collapse explains WTC just fine. Any theory with explosives doesn't explain where the collapse started, because any explosives at the collapse points would have burned off in the fire. Thermobarics would be even more vulnerable to the heat and then burning / flame environment, and are even less credible than normal explosives. But the heat of the fire was 2-3 times hotter than the hottest temperature the most heat resistant explosives in the world can stand before they break down and burn away (most explosives burn just fine, without detonating, if you light them on fire or heat them enough in an oven).

I appreciate that you mean well with all this. But explosives really don't make any sense at all here. They aren't a better explanation. They're a worse explanation. Really much worse. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That article is well written but a debris pile from a controlled demolition and from a "pancake" collapse would be much different. One would expect that the roof of the WTC would be pretty much intact. I'm NOT an expert on 9/11, just a skeptic. We could move on to the Pentagon, WTC-7 or Pennsylvania crash-site for more but I won't . . . I'll wait for more experts to weigh in . . . I should be getting the latest book by David Ray Griffin soon.
Like I said before, I'm new here and looked at some articles where I am an expert (Kennedy assassinations, Holocaust logistics & forensics of the alleged murder weapon) and found some serious bias. I thought I could improve the articles but ended up in a lot of hot water. . . I'd like to just cool it for awhile and retain my ability to make innocuous suggestions for improvement! I need to focus on my health too . . . I suffered a heart attack five-days ago, am haveing trouble with my best friend of 15-years and plan on a vacation in a coupla weeks. :) Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have never seen any building collapse from beyond 3 stories that left an intact roof. I don't know why you'd think it would be - the WTC core and curtain wall collapsed at different rates, and the "roof" and floors all hung between them, so any differential would tear up each floor level and the roof as it went.
A pancake collapse typically refers to what happens when one or two floors out of several collapse, but there's structural integrity above and below the failure floor(s). The WTC had enough gravitational potential energy that it couldn't pancake - once it started falling, the ultimate total crunch at the bottom was unavoidable. There was far too much energy in the block of structure above the failure points to avoid doing anything but smash the bottom of the falling block and the top of the remaining structure very completely as the collapse progressed.
Physics really isn't gentle to tall things that stop being solid and rigid. Look at what happens when an avalanche starts on a mountainside. The WTC was a vertical avalanche, falling straight down through its own structure and pulverizing it as it went. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Just remembered that David Griffin wrote that if the building did collapse as alleged by the government, the impact would have ruptured the retaining wall holding back the Hudson river and would have flooded Manhattan and really caused a mess . . . I spent several minutes looking for that reference but couldn't find it. There's an archetect/engineer at our University and many others at AE911Truth.org that say the government's non-explaination is not any good. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WTC Twin Towers: EXPLOSIVE Evidence

· Nearly free-fall acceleration through path of greatest resistance · Improbable symmetry of debris distribution · Extremely rapid onset of destruction · Over one hundred first responders reported explosions & flashes · Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 50 mph · Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking · Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds · 1200 foot diameter debris field: no “pancaked” floors found · Isolated explosive ejections 20-40 stories below demolition front · Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame · Several tons of molten iron found under all three high-rises · Evidence of thermite incendiaries found in steel & dust samples · FEMA steel analysis: sulfidation, oxidation & intergranular melting · No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire (WTC-7) SOURCE: AE911Truth.org Raquel Baranow (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The truth[edit]

Your discussion on AN/I is getting into some trouble where you don't understand our verifyability and reliable sources requirements. Your comments about orwellian ignorance of the truth need to be followed up on...

We don't care about "The Truth" not because we don't want to be accurate - on the contrary, we entirely do - but because we have no way of knowing what any contributor's actual experience, credentials, and validity are.

As I mentioned when I first started talking to you - people have claimed all sorts of crazy things including UFO attacks, earthquake faults, meteor strikes for the WTC collapses. We have no way of knowing if the person who writes "It was certainly a meteor impact, see the shockwave pattern and damage to surrounding buildings, the airburst pattern, etc" is a NASA meteor impact expert or a 13 year old kid who was watching the Armageddon movie and mistakes computer graphics for reality.

We have no way of knowing if "The Truth" that anyone claims has any validity to it.

What we do know, and can check on and confirm, is that Person X wrote thing Y in publication / book / newspaper / etc. Z. We can look at publication / book / newspaper Z and determine if they generally do fact-checking, scientific or engineering peer review, if it's a serious publication or a popular press, etc. We can also confirm things like "Publications A, B, C, D, E all carried articles saying that Y happened".

Websites are bad sources. They're bad sources because any person can put one up - there's no way to verify that they do fact checking, that they did any peer review, etc. There's no way to tell for sure who put it up, and what their real credentials and experience are. I could tell you here that I have been on a team that's imploded 20 buildings in controlled demolitions, and you have no reasonable way to confirm or refute that claim... (just to be clear - I have not actually done that... I have some experience with explosives, including both theory and practice, and an engineering degree, and I've looked at the analysies done for building collapses, terrorist bomb damage, structural engineering issues, etc. But I don't take buildings down for a living). I could say I was a university professor (I am not), etc.

We focus on reliable sources and verifyable sources because we don't have any idea who is putting information here, really, and we have no way to tell if someone claiming to know something really does. We can't tell if you're a qualified expert, or if I am. So we assume nobody is, and we insist that you do your homework and cite your references and sources for anything which seems questionable.

I don't believe any source is never going to be mistaken, or that any source could never be corrupted. But we judge the credibility of sources by how official they are - academic peer reviewed things are great, official reports by organizations are great, publications that include more references and which show their work and analysis and which are supported by other research are great.

Talking about fringe theories, there usually isn't much good coverage. But even with fringe theories, you find some people who have some credibility talking about things. There are some college professors and engineers associated with the 9/11 conspiracy groups. We can accurately report that those people have made statements or done analysies.

The problem with your thermobarics claims is that as far as I know, none of the experts in the 9/11 conspiracy crowd who know explosives have supported them. So it's not even reliably sourced or verifyable by standards *within the fringe group*...

That's the sort of support that ideas need to be included in Wikipedia. Even if the experts in the conspiracy stuff are way outside the mainstream, you need them to support the idea enough to justify including it here. So far as far as I can tell, none of them do. And from what I know on FAE / Thermobarics, there's not much chance that anyone would support it, given that it would be pretty much impossible to do that with those types of explosives, and it would have looked completely different if someone had tried.

So, please understand that it's important to find sources and references. If you can find some which are reasonably reliable in the context of the demolition conspiracy people, then please provide them. If there aren't any, you should consider why there aren't... perhaps it's because it's just an incorrect idea.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggested Thermobarics and found a few well-referenced articles with a Google search of Thermobaric & WTC . . . I was hopeing someone else would know better. Certainly NOT mini-Nukes as mentioned in the archive because there was no radioactivity. The articles I looked at mentioned other bombs but I thought Thermobarics were the most likely choice. Obviously some kind of bomb was used. There's waaaay too many holes in the official story. As I said before: The Pentagon, Pennsylvania, WTC-7, the skills of the alleged hijackers.
Look, I happen to be really sick now . . . this couldn't have come up at a worse time. If it wasn't for that vandal who erased what I wrote, this never would-have happened. Was that person justified in erasing what I wrote?!? Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Hello, Raquel Baranow. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 19:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Orwellian Thought Control, Double-Speak & Censorship at Wikipedia[edit]

For the record and my reference, so this discussion won't get lost, I'm copying it here. it is archived HERE.

Account espousing conspiracy theories; Intervention needed

This account is soapboxing and causing trouble:

The account is wasting other editors time and disrupting talk pages. I'd like to see if somebody else could intervene and explain how Wikipedia works before more time is wasted. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 19:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't need a soapbox for my ideas . . . I have a webpage and several Blogs for doing this. My purpose here at Wiki is to establish the truth. Seems everybody at Wiki thinks the Government is telling The Truth, lol, anyone who disagrees with the government's POV is considered a "soapboxer" or "conspiracy theorist."
I was told by an administrator that if I am an expert on a subject, I should say so. I'm an expert on the John F. Kennedy assassination and a skeptic of the Government in regards 9/11.
In the "Controlled Demolition" article's Talk Page I suggested opening up a new subject in the Article explaining why it appears that a bomb destoryed the entire two 100-story World Trade Centers, left a tiny debris pile at Ground Zero and a blanket of dust inches deep throughout New York City. The government's explaination is ridicuous. Governments do lie, U know! A bomb better explains what happened at the WTC's. I also mentioned that two references are needed for the most crucial paragraph in that article. I don't know how to add, "Citation Needed" to the one sentence and the other reference (#23) is a broken link. (Just noticed that someone fixed it but the link #23 does NOT cite a page explaining why there was such a tiny debris pile and blanket of dust throughout Manhattan . . . see the Talk-Page, cited herein.)
There are many other ppl besides myself who believe bombs destroyed the WTC: Google, Thermobaric + wtc. As I said above: The article on "Controlled Demolition at the WTC" is poorly referenced in a crucial paragraph and is one-sided.
How do we know the editors/censors of Wiki who are harassing me are not government agents bent on covering up the truth? Rather that allowing a discussion on a Talk Page, these ppl would censor and ban me. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You have got to be joking. Wikipedia editors are government agents bent on covering up the truth? Please. Go read our policy on reliable sources (nothing claiming that 9/11 was a conspiracy fits), and WP:TRUTH. Better yet, go back to your blogs and/or Conservapedia. //roux   20:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
In addition to Roux's comments, a requirement of editing here is that you assume good faith of other users. PhilKnight (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm a Canadian, and if I was government I'd be getting paid more. You are espousing a point of view that is definitely considered on the fringe side of things. You'd require extensive reliable sources to be able to include such material in the articles. You're not being censored, you're going over ground that's been covered many times on these articles, and being informed as to the guidelines that need to be met for such activities. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
OK seriously, why are we feeding this one? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Educating, not feeding. For now. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Go look at reference #23 as a "reliable source" to explain the tiny debris pile and dust everywhere several inches thick. What page number in reference #23 explains this? Same to U about "Good Faith" editing!
On no! The truths! Hide the children... (in fact, i think this is just a troll.)Bali ultimate (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Please don't poke fun at the user here. WP:BITE and WP:NPA apply here on ANI as much as anywhere else.
It's clear to me that Raquel is trying to do things which Wikipedia is not here for, including WP:SOAP etc. However, that needs to be politely communicated, and she needs to be given the opportunity to contribute in a positive manner. I left long message on her talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I hafta go for about 72-hours. I also promise to be more careful in the Discussion Pages but please don't ban me or erase anything I've written! If U want me to erase or edit something, please discuss it on my Talk Page before erasing what I have written! Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What you have written remains in the article history - but content that is not sourced to reliable references may be removed from the page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Now, this is one truth we censors editors can all live with!

"My purpose here at Wiki is to establish the truth". With the best will in the world, on her own talk page this editor claims to have been around since 2005; if s/he hasn't got the clue by now, and does not move forward, it has to be "kiss, kiss, bye-bye". Without the kisses. We have far too many such editors and give them far too much leeway as it is. Absent a severe change of attitude, it's time for a kick+door scenario. --Rodhullandemu 01:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I started out in 2005 an then quit and came back a coupla months ago. Why do U write "s/he" my name is Raquel.
This whole issue stems from a discussion-page about "Controlled Demolition" at the World Trade Center. The way the article is written, it is unsourced as to why there was such a tiny debris-pile and huge cloud of dust which settled over Manhattan several inches deep. The most logical explaination, which many other researchers are saying to explain that is Thermobaric Bombs were placed inside the WTCs, which complerely pulverized the two-100-story buildings. Google, Thermobaric + wtc. U guys are ganging up on me 'cause U don't wanna face reality or???? Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Raquel - This is not the location to argue about content or what "the most logical explanation is." As you may be aware, we care not for the "most logical explanation" or answers to questions like "why there was such a tiny debris pile?" Instead, we care to best reflect what a preponderance of reliable sources report, and have policies for dealing with fringe beliefs, a general disregard for the "Truth", and policies for editor conduct (of particular interest to you may be one on how to deal with disruption). You may think wikipedia's approach is wrong, or stupid, or something else. If so, you don't have to participate here. If you are going to participate here, you need to abide by the local rules and standards. If you stay and don't abide, there will be sanctions and that won't be censorship -- just as tossing a shirtless guy out of a private club (who insists ignoring the dress code is a form of free speech) isn't censorship either.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
let me add that wikipedia is intended (like any encyclopedia) to be unextraordinary, unrevelatory, and non-specultive: everything short of dull, pretty much. when and if the world gets to the place where you can suggest that the twin towers were destroyed by thermobaric bombs and most people will look at you and say "yeah... so what?" - then that information belongs on wikipedia. probably not before, though... --Ludwigs2 18:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sigh* I get the feeling that this isn't the last time we'll be dragged into this debate. But can someone please explain to me why, when there are myriad blogs and forums, do the fringe and conspiracy theorists have to come here? Why do they have to try and insert their unproven theories and 'evidence` into perfectly good articles? When, Raquel, are you and your compatriots going to realize that Wikipedia simply doesn't care, about your theories, or 'the truth'? If reliable, third party sources discover that it was a plot and it turns out that those bloody towers were thermobarically demolished, then I'll happily admit I was wrong; hell, I'll add the paragraphs and sources myself. Until then, you can politely take your huge cloud of dust and your tiny pile of debris, and shove them.
Yours, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
If U Google, Thermobaric + wtc, U will see many reliable sources for bomb in the WTC, which puverized everything and left a tiny debris pile. If U want I'll sort through them and tell U about the aurhors (some are University professors, some are Archetects & engineers, etc.) The Government's 9-11 report never examined or explained why there was such a small debris pile and so much dust everywhere but it seems obvious to anyone with an open mind that a bomb musta done it.
So what's the problem here? All I'm trying to do is add a topic catagory at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Evidence_of_Explosion:_What_Kind_of_Bomb_Could_Have_Pulverized_Everything.3F "Controlled Demolition" article at the WTC. I already showed that the critical paragraph at the article was unsourced and poorly sourced (i.e, first the link was broken and now it's linked to an 18MB PDF with no page reference.)
Again, I didn't tamper with the article, I merely wanna discuss adding a new section to the article to discuss the probability of a bomb. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I personally am always open to new ideas and theories, and if you post some links on my talk page, I'll certainly have a look with as open a mind as possible. Whether or not it's 'obvious' that your theory is correct is up for debate, but I'm afriad Wikipedia isn't the place for those debates. I must admit that I haven't had a chance to read through all of your edits, and all of the background material, so I can't make any judgements, but just looking at the link you provided above, it seems that you're trying to discuss a hypothesis, and provide evidence for your theory. Like I said before, this isn't the place for you to prove that your theory of events happened. Nor is it a place to discuss how the towers may have been destroyed. Wikipedia is here to document what mainstream media have reported about the event, and what has been reported about other theories. Whether the towers were destroyed by terrorists with a plane, someone with a thermobaric device or the Teletubbies with cuteness, is beside the point. This isn't the X-Files, and while 'the truth' may be out there we aren't here to report it before it can be suitably verified. Get your theory published and peer reviewed, and then we can talk.
Yours, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It does cite a page reference. I added it yesterday, in case you didn't notice. Hut 8.5 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Endorsing what Rodhullandemu said, I support the indefinite block of this user. Let's not waste any more time on someone whose definition of reliable sources is "uh, it turned up in Google". WilliamH (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
These are not zero-tolerance types of abuse. The actual edits so far don't even justify a brief block - warnings, explanations, yes. If they edit articles obstinately with these beliefs and don't get it after an extended period of time, that rises to the level of disruption. But they're not there right now.
Please don't overreact. This is an education problem at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The off-wiki website initially posted on this user's page is filled with unscholarly, antisemitic, holocaust-denying statements. This user wilfully chose to make the link to their website, which promotes racial hatred with offensive videos like this. What benefit can wikipedia possibly derive from the contributions of such individuals? Raquel Baranow's continued presence would presumably allow her to add to wikipedia her controversial views that gas chambers and Zyklon B were solely for defumigating louse-ridden clothes and that the Talmud is "junk". By previously posting this link to her hate website on her user page, Raquel Baranow would appear to have forfeited the right to edit wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been patiently trying to explain things to the user, which is what I hoped for when starting this thread. Unfortunately, the user is playing the "I can't hear you" game and is very likely to continue making contributions that are only disruptive and violating policies. As a result, I think it would be a good idea to place an indefinite block until such time as the user agrees to follow policy. We need to protect our volunteers from wasting time dealing with somebody who is obviously a deep believer in conspiracy and fringe theories, to the point that they will our behavioral and editorial norms to accomplish their agenda. Attempts to educate the user may continue, and the user could be unblocked if those attempts prove successful. Jehochman Talk 08:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm NOT "playing the 'I can't hear U game" (see my Talk-page) . . . the problems I have is with Ur concept of "reliable sources" and with ppl erasing what I have written on Discussion pages, which I hoped would lead to an intelligent discussion rather than someone just erasing it hoping I would go away or get banned. Think of all the ppl suffering respritory diseases due to the explosions at the WTCs now (there is a wiki-article about respritory problems from rescue workers at the WTC) they deserve an explaination as to why they are suffering and dieing!
The only thing I linked to my website was the CIA Killed JFK Page where I have numerous pictures of the Three Tramps arrested after the Kennedy assassination. I suggested that the pics are worth 1000 words and should be posted on the article about the Three Tramps. I never posted a link to my Holocaust-page!
When the article in discussion (Controlled Demolition of the WTC) is a "fringe theory" U hafta rely on "Unreliable sources" to explain it. right? IMO: the person who erased what I wrote on the discussion page is the one who should be disciplined here, not me. What I wrote on the "Controlled Demolition" page should remain for further reference until there is a "reliable source" we can all agree on. Or, the article should include a section on the current theory of "Controlled Demolition," which is "Thermobaric Bombs." The archives, which I have read prior to writing on the discussion-page mention "mini-nukes" but that explaination is not the current theory, Thermobaric Bombs best explain the tiny debris pile at Ground Zero and several inches of pulverized concrete, etc. throughout lower Manhattan.
Sarcastic: Leave a comment on the Controlled Demolition Topic I started so that when I do find an article that may be "reliable" U can help me add a section to the "Controlled Demolition" Page about Thermobaric Bombs (I don't know html very well).
Mathsci is raising an issue that has been dealt with it is in the past and WTF, I use my website as a link on hundreds of blogs, etc. . . . this is the first place I have ever had a problem with it! . . . someone took the liberty of erasing the link to my website from MY Userpage (I read that U'r NOT supposed to edit other ppl's Userpages), both my address & website . . . I had no real objection. . . . The H-denial page is poorly written and biased . . . many other ppl have agreed. I am an expert on H-denial . . . so, is that a thought-crime worthy of banning me before I've done anything wrong!?
Peace & Love, Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Users can remove links to hateful sites as per the rules  rdunnPLIB  14:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Blogs cannot be reliably used in a case like this so I suggest Block per Wikipedia:General sanctions.  rdunnPLIB  14:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Agree with Jehochman. Georgewilliamherbert has done a sterling job in explaining, but there is only so far one can extend good faith. WilliamH (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
My site explains what H-denial is as well as Global Warming, Exponential World Population Growth, Peak Oil, The Economics of the Current crisis ($531-Trillion, yes trillion in the Derivatives market), Eliminating Money, the 9/11 Fraud, etc. etc. (I don't believe in UFO's . . . I have a webpage on my website about the unlikely-hood of life anywhere else but Earth.) U ppl that mock me for my beliefs probably never read a good H-denial book or know what H-denial is.
So, this is MOB RULE! U guys should realize, "Democracy is one level above tyranny." -- Plato, Republic.
The only reason I used my website was it had ALL the pics of the alleged Tramps in one place. I put my website on my Usre-Page so others could know more about me . . . someone else removed it, I have no problem with that. I have NOT really caused any problems here except for those who don't wanna hear the other side . . . I have NOT repeated anything that has been said before. U guys are making a BIG deal outta nothing! It's like U wanna censor anything that U disagree with! U don't even wanna discuss it! No wonder Wiki has such a BAD reputation when U wanna refer to it for anything.
Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
We are not interested in the content of your site; as the owner of that site, you have an obvious conflict of interest which precludes you using it as a source when editing. Your description of your site appears to be using this discussion as a forum to promote your political views, rather than addressing the Wikipedia policy issues at stake here. Discussions of history are not simply a matter of opinion; there is also a requirement for credible evidence. I may disagree with a theory, but if there's evidence to support it, and historians out there in the rest of the world use that evidence to back that theory, I can't argue that the theory shouldn't be represented on this site. However, if there isn't the evidence, or the theory has no credible advocates, then it doesn't get covered. And I really can't stress enough that you need to read and understand WP:TRUTH. This is not a site to publish new revelations or dramatic and controversial new theories. We proceed on a basis of consensus and verification, and if that means we lack novel interpretations of material, so be it.
As a courtesy to others, by the way, would you refrain from using shorthand like 'U', 'Wiki', and 'H-denial', please? Your views will be better regarded for being expressed clearly and in plain language. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Alex: U will see below that I have stopped abbreviating stuff . . . I'm also not too good at spelling. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

People here in this thread have mocked me and brought off-topic issues into this so I'm defending myself . . . this has turned into a pile-on of my beliefs rather than my editing technique. I pretty much "get it" of where ur comming from. My problem seems to be your definition of "reliable source." But when U write an article on a fringe theory (Holocaust Denial, Kennedy assassination conspiracy, Controlled Demolition of WTC) and you're NOT allowed to quote directly from the people who espouse these ideas because their ideas are "fringe," COI, SOAP, TRUTH etc. etc. you're left with nothing. The words you use are like Double-Think. U guys are sooooo wrapped up in Double Think, you can't see through it. It takes an outsider, like me to show how your words and techniques for editing promote one-sided explainations. I thought Discussion-pages were supposed to be used for improving an article! How have any of my discussions NOT sought in Good Faith to improve the articles in question?!
U guys have made ad-hominum attacks on me by refering to my videos (I'm not too photogenic). I am a very smart person. Soooo smart, I went from homelessness to millionaire.
The only reason we're here is because someone erased what I wrote on the Discussion Page for Controlled Demolition. IMO, that was sooooooo wrong! The people who died in that tragedy, the phony war in Iraq 9/11 caused and the people who are dieing from respritory problems deserve an explaination of what happened that day. Our government has NOT offered a plausable explaination for the tiny debris pile and toxic dust several inches deep. U faceless/nameless people attacking me should be ashamed of yourselves!
Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
If you're that smart, would you like to acknowledge and act on my final comment relating to the use of language, please? You currently do yourself no favours. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

←Actually, Raquel, if you actually read the criticisms of your edits you'll see that what is being attacked is not your theory, nor you (with some exceptions on both counts, and GWH's comments on civility in this forum are well made). What is being debated is that there are no reliable sources, in WP terms, for what you are claiming. If you can come up with reliable, verifiable sources, please do so. You may feel that by definition "the Government" or "they" are in control of what we're terming "reliable sources". If so, then so be it. You may have a slightly wrong idea about what WP is. It is not a vehicle for the Truth. It is a tertiary encyclopædic source, reporting what has already been reported elsewhere. That is what it's for. That is why it is neither a vehicle for original research nor a platform to "give explainations to the people who died" (I suspect it would take more than WP to offer explanations to the dead anyway). Please read, rather than discounting as "attacks by faceless/nameless people" what has been said, read the pages you're being pointed to, such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:FRINGE (that last is not intended as an insult, please read it to discover why. Tonywalton Talk 17:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, okay . . . I really appreciate you tolorating me this long. It has really opened my eyes . . . I have looked for books like, "Wikipedia for Dummies" and critical books about editorial process here. It sounds shocking that you admit you're not interested in Truth, etc. Sounds like Orwellian Double-Think and Thought Control to me. I thought the purpose of discussion pages was to improve the article. I see your points. I'll read all you have suggested and any books too. Thanks! :) Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Looking for a book? Look no further than Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. – ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope, WP isn't about the truth (or The Truth either, come to that. This may come as a shock, I agree. The applicable part of WP:V says very clearly "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." There's even an essay on it, here. It's not that "we" (and I speak for myself, not the thousands of other editors) are not interested in "truth", just that that is not, basically, what WP is about. WP is about re-presenting and correlating pre-existing information. The standard (reached by consensus though this is ultimately not a democracy) is as stated here. Maybe you could try being part of the process of reaching consensus on occasion, rather than throwing around baseless accusations of editors being "faceless/nameless people". As for "the Government" remember that this is very much a global project; your "the Government" isn't my "the Government"; we get all sorts on here. This is taking up a lot of space here, please feel free to continue the discussion on my talkpage. Tonywalton Talk 20:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's resolve this! I'm kinda new here . . . I had a heart attack five days ago, have a problem with my best friend of 15-years . . . I thought I could improve some articles which I'm an expert in or have some knowledge of and accidently got into hot water . . . I'd like to just cool it now . . . I plan to go on vacation in a coupla weeks. I'd like to retain my abality to comment on and edit innocuous articles. Thanks everyone! I copied this entire discussion to my talk-page for further reference. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
As a footnote, Raquel Baranow's personal views denying the holocaust [2] were spelled out in full on the talk pages of Holocaust denial. Calling editors disagreeing with her conspiracy theories "jerks" on her talk page [3] is also uncivil, illness or no. In spite of the efforts of Georgewilliamherbert and others, she has not yet twigged on to the fact that wikipedia is not a forum where she can write whatever she likes. Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Those aren't my "personal views" on the Holocaust but the views of Holocaust Deniers . . . I can reference everything I said there to Holocaust Deniers mentioned in the article or primary sources (like the Military Tribunal evidence or other government documents). The article on Holocaust Denial is BIASED . . . many other people agree (see also the archives), the article does NOT tell you what Holocaust Denial is (many other people there agree). I said this in my comment there. I called the vandal, who erased what I wrote on the Controlled Demolition page a "jerk". IMO: a vandal = jerk. I'll revise what I wrote on my Talk-Page. Raquel Baranow (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
By uncritically repeating their claims (in your own words: some "witnesses" say the Zyklon was "swept out the doors" and dumped through holes in the ceiling, aerial reconnasiance photos, which contradict eyewitness testimony of smoke & flames belching from crematoria chimnies and shows no huge piles of coke necessary for mass cremation above those that died during typhus epidemics or other causes), you are giving the appearance of being in agreement with certain extreme holocaust deniers. The same goes for your videos. Perhaps you could tell us here in one sentence what you think holocaust denial is, since the lede of the article already seems to makes that quite clear. As far as I understand what you have written on the talk page, you are saying that it is an established fact that there was no systematic and deliberate mass extermination of Jews in concentration camps and that they in fact perished because of typhus. Please correct me if I have made an error. Mathsci (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying, I can reference the quote about Zyklon swept out the doors to the IMT-Trials documents; can reference aerial photos by US reconnasiance airplanes to an official government site or a CIA report I have in my files that states, "there is no evidence of pits, pyers or smoke and flames" as alledged by witnesses during the Hungarian evacuation where 10,000 people were allegedly exterminated/day . . . (this is in the CIA report I obtained/photocopied from the government documents section of our University library), a quote from Hermann Goering at the IMT-Trials about the necessity of crematoria to dispose of bodies due to typhus epidemics, etc..
If it was an "established fact" that there was no "systematic and deliberate mass extermination" then there would be plenty of "reliable sources." The paragraph I wrote on the talk page describes what Holocaust Denial is or what "Deniers" believe. That's what the (biased, redundant) article is supposed to be about. People have stated repeatedly in the talk pages (archive included) that the article does not articulate what it purports to explain, is biased & redundant of the Holocaust Denial criticism article.
Are you trying to say that experts with a POV can not edit articles at Wikipedia?! Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Raquel, as has been explained to you repeatedly, Wikipedia is not the place for you to float your novel interpretations of history, whether they be on the Holocaust, the JFK assassination, or the World Trade Center attacks. You have a blog where you can do that and Usenet can still be found where it always was. I know you can't have forgotten this because you archived the whole WP:ANI discussion on your talk page [[4]]. I can't imagine that it isn't clear to you by now. You're not going to revise the generally accepted view of history on Wikipedia. That's not what an encyclopedia is for. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Novel" POV, Steve. U mean, "re-write (or revise) history". Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Heart attack[edit]

You said on WP:AN/I you'd had a heart attack a short time ago, Regardless of anything to do with edits on Wikipedia, best wishes for a swift recovery! Tonywalton Talk 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ack! I'm very sorry to hear about that happening to you. Yes. Please don't stress out over this. Your health is important. Best wishes for a smooth recovery and long healthy life from here... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, my parents left today after a short visit, I'm estranged from my best friend of 15 years over all the stress that let to the attack (I went to hospital) and I've been crying on and off all day. I just wanna be left alone for awhile and not hafta defend myself. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
If you're feeling sick, I recommend that you take a few days off Wikipedia and then come back. Nobody is at their best participating in a place like this when they're not feeling well, and anything like a heart attack will certainly have its impact.
Nothing will change or be damaged if you just take a few days or a week off to recover.
Keep your health... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm back. It was a drug-induced (Methamphetamine) heart attack (severe flutter), it was my first/last time . . . I was recovering from Coke addiction, which was causing heart problems, when some guy offered it to me. I'm also friends again with the friend (not the one who gave it to me). I wanna quit smoking cigs. Two years ago I used to run 4-miles/day and could run half-marathons up a nearby mountain. Raquel Baranow (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Three Tramps (new discussion)[edit]

A picture is worth 1000 words. I have some pics comparing Hunt, Sturgis, Holt & Harrelson to the Three Tramps as well as my conclusion and info that two of the Tramps were indeed Hunt & Sturgis, HERE. The Rockefeller Commission never published any pics of Hunt, Sturgis & the Tramps. The HSCA Commission used lousy pics of Hunt & Sturgis to compare to the Tramps. Show the pics, let ppl judge for themselves. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

1. According to the arrest report the tramps were: Harold Doyle, John F. Gedney, and Gus W. Abrams.
2. Doyle and Gedney were interviewed extensively in the early 1990's, as was Abrams' sister.
The evidence is irrefutable. Have you actually read the article and looked at the supporting evidence? Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I have read the article and looked at the supporting evidence, check out my webpage link, above (scroll down the the FBI interviews and the part about the LaFontains's book). The FBI interviews of Doyle, Gedney & Abrams as well as the police interviews of the Three Tramps (where they were about to give parafin tests) as well as the reaction of the Tramps when they were arrested (one of the officers said they were cursing so "I jacked a shell into my shotgun" . . .) and the timing and place (flatcar vs gondola) of all the arrests shows that Gedney, Abrams and Doyle were not the ones seen crossing Dealy plaza. Plus, I saw a pic of DOYLE (revised name, was "Gedney?") who does not look like one of the Tramps. Do U think the FBI is sooo stupid to give parafin tests to three obvious tramps (Gedney, Abrams & Doyle)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raquel Baranow (talkcontribs) 10:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
From your web page: Critics say the "Tramps" have been identified as DOYLE, ABRAMS and GEDNEY but provide no pictures.
From your comment above: I saw a pic of Gedney? who does not look like one of the Tramps.
Can you explain this incongruity please? Pictures of Doyle and Abrams are also widely available. Again, explain please?
So if I understand your conclusions correctly:
The "tramps" in the infamous photos really are Hunt, Sturgis and Harrelson, who were picked up by police in Dealey Plaza.
Separately, Doyle, Gedney and Abrams, three actual tramps who look a lot like Hunt, Sturgis and Harrelson were also picked up.
The two arrests are therefore AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE?! If I've misunderstood, please explain. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Not only does the Tramp photo not look like DOYLE to me, when the LaFontains showed the pic of the Dealy Plaza Tramp to DOYLE's relatives & friends, they said it was not DOYLE. If pics of all SIX Tramps are available they should all be shown and compared here! (I'm not sure if it was DOYLE . . . I'd hafta get LaFontain's book again to see 4 sure but a pic in "Coup d'Etat in America," which I have on my bookshelf makes me think it's DOYLE.)
What's so "amazing" about Tramps being in a railroad yard near the Mission, have U ever hopped a frieght? (I have, MANY times.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What is so tired and pathetic about these people not accepting that the three tramps were in fact simply that - three tramps - is what they are asking us to accept here. Namely that the "old" tramp, is in fact Hunt who, in 1963, would have been YOUNGER (born 1918) than the man he supposedly conspired to kill (Kennedy was born 1917). One look at that photo would tell any reasonable person that these are different people. Of course, we aren't dealing with reasonable people here... Canada Jack (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Dr. Snow at the HSCA, "earlier pics of Hunt indicate that he had plastic surgery to bring his ears back closer together" (paraphrased?). Again, lets show the ALL the pics, let us decide (we're not blind) or do we hafta take Dr. Snow's and the HSCA's words for it as if governments -- especially U$A, don't lie, commit coup d'etats, force confessions or cover up and crucify truth? Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, how do you expect us to believe that that old tramp who looks like he was old enough to be Kennedy's father, was in fact Mr. Hunt who was younger than Kennedy? We don't have to take anyone's "word" for it - the answer is rather obvious, Raquel: The man was not Hunt.Canada Jack (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's Ur opinion or POV that the "old tramp looks like he was old enough to be Kennedy's father." Hunt was an admitted master of disguise. (Citation needed but I could find it if U don't believe me.) Again: Show the pics so we can see 4 ourselves! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raquel Baranow (talkcontribs) 00:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You claim that that photo is of Mr. Hunt. I say that Hunt was younger than Kennedy, yet the man you claim to be him appears to be old enough to be his father. So you call that "POV" and say Hunt was "an admitted master of disguise." Well, if that is so, then how can one possibly hope to identify such a "master of disguise"??? Seems to be quite the fall-back. I suppose if he looked like Michael Jordan and was 6 foot 10, then you'd say that "master of disguise" was at it again! The conspiracy theorists might be taken a bit more seriously if they weren't so silly. But that's my POV. Canada Jack (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hunt is listed on his resume as being 5'8". A photo-analysis in the book "Coup d'Etat in America" shows this to be true. A similar comparison of the Sturgis Tramp confirms the two heights (ibid.) . . . there's also TWO independent forensic scientists who identify the third Tramp as being "Dan Carswell" (ibid.). Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Raquel, this is unfair. Either you are posting here because you are serious about improving this article on wikipedia, or you are not serious, and have some other motive (like you enjoying toying with people while you plug your web site). If you are serious, then you have a responsibility to answer other peoples' questions about your claims.
Again, are you or are you not suggesting that two different groups of similar-looking men, the first being Doyle, Abrams and Gedney, and the second being Hunt, Sturgis and Harrelson were both arrested on the day in question? I don't see how else you can reach the conclusions you have reached. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, six ppl (actually more) were arrested that day taking for granted Gedney, Doyle & Abrams were NOT contrived by the CIA to explain who the Tramps were. I'm serious: CIA killed JFK! I'm an expert on this . . . been arrested and interrogated by the Secret Service under very strange circumstances . . . asked all kinds of weird questions in jail . . . offered drugs by said Secret Service agents in jail, etc. I'm NOT making this up and I'm NOT mentally ill, lol! I'm a very smart/wise person! :) Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, you certainly seem sincere, I'll give you that. I'm afraid I'm out of my depth here. You were offered drugs by the Secret Service? Um, wow, thanks for sharing. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denial discussion[edit]

Here's a really good book in PDF form U can read for free online by Jurgen Graf, who is also mentioned as a "Denier" in the article. I'd like to see this book added to the article under his name. I have never seen it refuted . . . his arguement seems pretty solid. I also hafta agree, I was stunned by the bias in this article . . . a person who wants to know what "Holocaust Denial" is won't find the answer here. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A person who wants to know what Holocaust denial is should read the first sentence in the article:
"Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II — usually referred to as the Holocaust — did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by current scholarship."
Seems pretty straightforward to me. - EronTalk 22:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
There's also the logistics & forensics of the alleged murder weapon, cremating or disposing of the dead (up to 10,000/day at Auschwitz during the Hungarian evacuation), the necessary amount of fuel to cremate corpses (every crematory manufacturer says how many kilocalories their retort consumes/hour . . . where are the requisitions for this amount of fuel?), the necessary amount of time to cremate a body (is it 20 minutes, as alleged or an hour, which is more realistic), the type of gas allegedly used (Hydrogen Cyanide ZyklonB louse disinfestant at Auschwitz; diesel exhaust at Treblinka), the practicality or possibility of useing louse disinfestant or diesel exhaust (i.e., diesel exhaust does not have toxic amounts of carbon monoxide; some "witnesses" say the Zyklon was "swept out the doors" and dumped through holes in the ceiling), aerial reconnasiance photos, which contradict eyewitness testimony of smoke & flames belching from crematoria chimnies and shows no huge piles of coke necessary for mass cremation above those that died during typhus epidemics or other causes; tortured confessors, malicious and absurd "eyewitnesses" (the reliability of witnesses or confessions and hearsay); the reliability, translation and context of the evidence/documents; demographics (were 6,000,000 killed?), the practicality or possibility of cremating bodies in pits, the lack of evidence that any pits were dug (can't see 'em in the aerial reconnasiance photos) . . . etc. This is what H-denial is. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This article does not exist as a forum for Holocaust deniers to promulgate their lies. It exists to explain what Holocaust denial is, what its proponents claim, and how mainstream historians respond to their claims. It does that. If you are interested in the history of the Holocaust (and the ample, convincing, overwhelmingly accepted evidence for it) I suggest you start by reading Holocaust and going from there. If you are interested in using this talk page to deny the Holocaust - as your reply to me seems to indicate - then I suggest you save your breath. - EronTalk 01:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
What I wrote does explain what H-denial is (better than the article), what it's proponents claim (which U call "lies") and, the book I cited by Jurgen Graf is a "denier's" response to a mainstream historian, Raul Hilberg. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
That's Ur POV that it's an "extremist organization," WilliamH. (Aren't Zionists and fundamentalist Christians "extremists" too?) IMO, VHO critically examines the sources mainstream historians, like Hilberg use . . . I have read both Hilberg (the 19-pages & footnotes on the logistics & forensics of the alleged murder weapon and disposal of the dead, entitled, "Killing Center Operations," in his book, "The Destruction of the European Jews") & Graf, as well as many other primary sources (such as the International Military Tribunal documents and science behind asphyxiation by diesel exhaust), Shermer's, Lipstadt's, Evan's, Butz's books (mentioned in the article), etc. and consider myself an expert in H-denial. I'm willing to reference all of my statements to primary sources and to the "denier's" works -- many of which are available on-line in PDF-form for free and should be referenced and linked in the current article, under, "References: By Holocaust deniers". Have U or Eron read any of the denier's books? As it stands, this article, is redundant to the Criticism of Holocaust denial article and doesn't answer the question: What is Holocaust denial? Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
"Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II — usually referred to as the Holocaust — did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by current scholarship."
This article describes in general terms what Holocaust deniers claim, outlines mainstream historical response, and describes the development of Holocaust denial from WWII to the present.
You seem to be suggesting that this article should detail the specific claims of Holocaust deniers - that it should lay out their case for claiming the Holocaust did not take place. That is not going to happen. The claims of Holocaust deniers do not meet Wikipedia criteria for verifiability and the use of reliable sources. Holocaust denial is academically dishonest and disreputable pseudo-history. Wikipedia should not be used to put forward its thoroughly discredited claims.
As to bias, this article is biased against Holocaust deniers in the same way that the article Earth is biased against the Flat Earth Society - and appropriately so. - EronTalk 18:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
According to the 2004 report by the German Federal Ministry of the Interior, the Verfassungsschutzbericht, VHO is indeed an extremist organization.
Incidentally, I did read Butz's book about what he maintains is the hoax of the 20th century, though I must have missed the bit where he explains how the alleged hoaxers and forgers managed to forge the entire workings of the German government for around 4 - 5 years, to quote The Holocaust History Project, who also point the myriad of non-existant individuals one of VHO's closest assosciates Germar Rudolf uses. To say the least, that falls far short of WP:RS, and Wikipedia will not present fringe theories as fact. WilliamH (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Lol, Citing a German government document stating that VHO is "extremist" is like stating that the US Government's conclusion that 9/11 was NOT a controlled demolition after the airplanes struck or the Warren Report that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman. This discussion is a classic case of how brainwashing, Thought Control & propaganda works! Raquel Baranow (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Remove the biased introduction from the article. The article should present a neutral discussion of the controversy stating the arguments and counter-arguments and citing appropriate sources. With statements like "The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary" is judgemental and not appropriate for a encylopedia. I am changing it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.45.129 (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The purpose of this article is to explain what Holocaust denial is. It does that. This article is not here to present "arguments and counter-arguments" in favour of whether or not the Holocaust occurred. Holocaust denial is a fringe theory that is rejected by all mainstream historians. It is a referenced and verifiable fact that "the methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary." That is one of the fundamental criticisms of Holocaust denial - that it starts from the premise that the Holocaust did not occur, and then seeks out evidence to support that premise. Evidence that does not support the premise is rejected, ignored, or distorted. It's just bad historical practice. - EronTalk 04:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Ppl that come to this article wanna know what the H-deniers believe. I did NOT study this with a predetermined conclusion. H-deniers points of view should be presented here and the counter-arguements should be on the Criticism of Holocaust denial page. Raquel Baranow (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
People who read this article will learn that "Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II... did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by current scholarship." They will learn that Holocasut deniers believe that the Nazi government did not have a policy of targeting Jews for extermination; that between five and seven million Jews were not systematically killed; and that genocide was not carried out at extermination camps. They will learn this in the first two paragraphs. That is the point of view of Holocaust deniers, and it is presented here.
What you seem to want is an article that uncritically lays out the case for Holocaust denial. That will not happen. See guidelines on dealing with fringe theories for some information as to why. - EronTalk 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore the article contains no less than six links to denialist websites. Which is more than enough for any person who wants to know what deniers believe to do so. There is therefore no need to make this article becoming one more platform for denialist garbage. --Lebob-BE (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a mechanism to review this article as biased, redundant (of the Criticism of Holocaust denial article) & NOT answering the question: What is Holocaust denial?
Should I start a topic 4 conensus: This Article is Bias, Rendundant and Doesn't Answer the Question: "What is Holocaust denial?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raquel Baranow (talkcontribs) 00:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of dispute resolution systems available in Wikipedia. For this sort of content dispute, there are a few options you could use. One suggestion is to take it up at a subject-specific WikiProject talk page. This page is within the scope of both WikiProject Jewish history and WikiProject Alternative Views so you could raise it there. Another option is to take it to the Neutrality noticeboard. You could start a request for comments, though that is usually used for editor conduct rather than article issues.
Before you do any of that, I strongly urge you to review the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies. There are pointers to various of them in the above discussion, but I'll point out the key ones here: Reliable sources, Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Fringe theories. - EronTalk 04:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thx Eron, I'll think about it . . . I'm kinda new to Wiki, don't know html very well or the Rules & procedures . . . very interesting Talk pages (archive too) . . . I read about half the archive so far. Anyone studying Wiki as a project or process -- to write a book about it -- should study this article . . . it's articles like this that give Wiki a bad name. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

SRS and other trans-related pages.[edit]

Happy to do what I can. There have been many editors interested in the political aspects of the trans pages, but I have long thought it a shame that far fewer contribute to pages that readers might derive practical benefit from.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement[edit]

I am sorry, but you seem to have ignored warnings and advice concerning standards for editing Wikipedia. Please see this discussion and let your peers know if you are willing to refrain from introducing original research and unreliable information into article talk pages. Perfection is not required, but you do need to show a willingness to learn and follow community standards. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 19:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

SPAM/COI[edit]

Information.svg If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. . See this edit. Jehochman Talk 21:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It's true and from a reliable source. An editor removed what I wrote. I proposed to reinsert the info without reference to the pic. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Scary people at Wikipedia trying to ban/censor me[edit]

Topic ban needed

See this diff. The editor was previously warned and has received extensive counseling here. They refuse to understand that Wikipedia is not for publishing original research and promoting conspiracy theories. Jehochman Talk 21:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to a 1-year ban? PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well, this is obviously fringe theory soapboxing, but do you think a topic ban is warranted unless she edits the actual articles in the same vein?  Sandstein  13:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd give her credit for using the talk page instead of editing the article. Claiming that she is using Wikipedia for promoting conspiracy theories is avoiding the fact that two of the five points in that diff are valid and could/should be addressed. If they actually have valid points these editors should be dealt with civily instead of requesting a ban just because they believe in conspiracies. Wayne (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
"I DIDNT HEAR THAT" on talk pages can be just as disruptive, i.e. wasteful of editors's time, as edits to articles. This editor should perhaps receive one more very explicit warning, but then imho a ban would be appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Turning a talk page into a conspiracy theory chatroom is very disruptive. It wastes time of other contributors and disrupts the formation of consensus. Warnings and extensive counseling have been given. Unless the user provides a reason why things might be different, a ban is needed. I'll ask her to comment here.Jehochman Talk 19:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy, Dana was full banned 1 year for disruptive POV pushing in the talk pages, idem in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe science topic bannig Pcarbonn. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is biased and doesn't represent facts because U say the facts come from unreliable sorces. AE911Truth.org (Archetects & Engineers for 911 Truth) is not mentioned at all. We have a profesor at our university who is an archetect of heavy construction (bridges and more), who holds meetings a few times a year to discuss how the structure of the Twin Towers and WTC7 could never have fallen like that. If more archetects saw these videos (IMO, "Zeitgist" is propaganda) and read David Ray Griffin's books, they would join too. Popular Mechanics & Skeptic magazine aren't really reliable peer-reviewed journals (I've subscribed to Skeptic since the beginning and met/spoke to Michael Shermer several times, telling him he's not skeptical enough, etc. . . I inspired him to do the Holocaust issue but he ignored the forensics and logistics of the alleged murder weapon.) Griffin did a through debunking of the Popular Mechanics article/book. Popular Mechanics is like the Reader's Digest for mechanics. Do U consider Reader's Digest a reliable source or a place to pitch propaganda to the masses? I have nothing more to say on the article unless I find some more bias in it. I'd like to change the header to the topic I started to add, "Biased article" to see if other's agree. The article reads like a handout from the CIA or something that would appear in Reader's Digest. U wanna ban me 'cause U don't wanna have to deal with the elephant in the room, which is the pulverized dust several inches deep throughout Manhattan, the tiny debris pile, big, heavy beams hurled 600 yards, destruction of evidence at the crime scene, reliable witnesses/victims of explosions and molten metal in the basement. Could also be that if an Archetect/Engineer comes out agains't the Government's conspiracy theory, they would not get a government job. Like I said, I have nothing more to say there. If I do start another topic it will be after I look through the archives to see how many other people think the article is biased. I do promise to be very careful if I do post anything more there. I also want to watch the page to see how U handle other dissentors of the Official Conspiracy Theory. If Ur just gonna delete what they write on talk-pages like U did to me. It's only a matter of time before some prominant, retired archetect or a better, more informed dissentor comes along to challenge this article. There's no doubt in my mind thermobaric bombs brought down the WTCs. The two videos at the bottom of my webpage should be mentioned too. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case. Jehochman Talk 21:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
If she doesn't give us clear evidence that her behaviour will change, I'll support the ban. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Note she is still adding her website to articles [5]. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Those edits to "Mammon" have been removed and I'm discussing it on the talk page. I made a mistake, the pic-link is not necessary. It's like a catch 22: U can't discuss improving an article about conspiracy theory at WTC without details about what the actual conspiracy theory is because none of the conspiracy theories (except the Government's) come from reliable sources? David Ray Griffin is reliable. Everything he writes is sourced. U guys have knee-jerk reactions to "conspiracy theory"? Are U not open-minded that U could be wrong? I'll change, I'm learning, some editors are more tolorant that U guys. I made some legitimate points in the talk-page at controlled demolition. The article is biased it doesn't tell the whole theory plus there are lotsa weasel words like saying "all mainstream engineers" agree with the government. I'm sure U've made mistakes here too when U first started out. I only recently got interested in editing Wikipedia . . . just so happens most of my interests are controversial, radical, revolutionary, anti-status quo. Some people, including my two brother-in-laws are really smart (and so am I) but when I mention a conspiracy theory, they immediately scoff. As if governments don't lie!? I won't refer to my website in any articles I edit. I did so here cause it is easier than citing the two videos directly. I know the URL to my website without looking whereas if I cited the two videos directly I'd hafta click through a bunch of stuff, open a bunch of windows, copy and paste. I promise to be very careful discussing conspiracy theory on controled demolition. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I was involved in the original AN/I report on this editor, and Georgewilliamherbert and I, together with other editors, tried to explain WP policies on reliable sources, POV-pushing, WP:SOAP, verifiability (including Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth and so on. Following some comments about "being a new editor" and "learning", with other comments verging on the uncivil about "faceless and nameless editors" censoring "the truth" on Wikipedia Raquel withdrew for a short period, citing ill-health and commenting "let's resolve this". She returned very shortly afterwards and commenced the same POV-pushing on talkpages rather than on articles. She seems unable or unwilling to accept WP policies either primarily in terms of verifiability and reliability of sources or secondarily in terms of collegial editing. She appears unable to accept that WP is not there as a platform for her to air her views irrespective of policy. I support a topic ban as proposed. Tonywalton Talk 23:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm done commenting on the controlled demolition page. I learned my lesson interfering there but it is a biased article. Tony we just have a different idea of what the page should be about. I thought readers could try to improve articles. That's what I sincerely wanted to do but can't 'cause U say David Ray Griffen, AE911Truth.org, 911Reports.com, or this video about explosives (with plenty of credible references) are not reliable sources or worth mention. The video has had over 10,000,000 viewes on YouTube. It's a question of who is telling the truth. We know governments lie, especially U$A, we've assassinated heads of state all over the world, including a coup d'etat in Dallas, 11/22/63. I'll look through all the archives for a thread about bias in the article. If I find anything significant showing readers think the article is bias, then maybe I'll raise the issue for a consenses, major re-write? If U'r going to say, "That won't happen," (even if consensus says the article is biased), please explain why? Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Forget topic ban, propose complete ban. It takes absolutely no virtue of the imagination to work out once 9/11 related articles are off limits to Raquel, she will put her attention elsewhere - most probably on Holocaust and Holocaust denial related discussions, and with regards to this page, it cannot be argued that such anticipation is without basis. WilliamH (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not here to cause trouble, play around, or get attention but to try and improve articles. We just have a disagreement William as to what is the verifiable, logical truth. U guys really scare me! Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Raquel, all this fuss is really not necessary. You just need to understand that Wikipedia is different from other websites. What gets published here is used by kids to do their homework. We need to be careful to report verifiable facts. We do not publish stuff in the first instance, even if it is correct and accurate. Our job is to compile what's said elsewhere in reliable sources and summarize it. If you think the "standard" view of the world is a load of garbage (it might be!), you should write about it on your own blog. Wikipedia is the wrong place to bring non-mainstream views to light. If you say try to work within these boundaries, people would help you. If you go outside the fence, then the gate will be shut behind you. Jehochman Talk 04:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Peace & Love, Jehochman! This is a study in propaganda. I honestly believed I was improving the article! I just remembered there was a Jewish-American guy, a lawyer, who was going to be an official UN liason to Israel who believed the goverment was behind 9/11 or covered up the truth. (The UN removed him.) More & more people are comming out against the goverment's conspiracy theory, Rosie O'donnel was kicked off the View, there's an actor on the TV show "Rescue Me" who doesn't believe the goverment. This fuss isn't necessary! I learned my lesson!!!! That video with over 10-million views about explosives in the WTC should be mentioned in the article. We should start a list of 9/11 dissentors who do not believe the govrment's conspiracy theory. I'm new here, I naively jumped into an article that has catastrophic consequences for people who have faith in the goverment. I don't have any faith in our government or the world leaders, who have jets & yahats to escape to South America or their 1000-acre ranches when the sh*t hits the fan. They know Geometric World Population growth, Peak-Oil and Global Warming will mean catastrophy. IMO: they're panning bacteriological warfare to trim the population down or they're going to allow civilization to collapse so we'll have a manageable world population. Moslems are demographically taking over the Middle East and are infiltrating Europe. Bill Clinton said recently that demographics is Israel's #1 problem. Both my grandfathers were University science professors, my sisters have PhDs, I'm not stupid. I've met a lot of nice people here. I'm learning. Peace & Love! :) Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose the article isn't neutral, it's biased, the editors there are intolorant, they accept NO dissent or contrary views and they're ganging up on me. I'll impose a ban on myself. I'll cool-it. I learned my lesson! I really, honestly thought I was offering evidence to improve the article or at least show what the conspiracy theorists believe. What I wrote on the talk-page should NOT be erased as my previous comments there were (maybe I wrote it badly but I re-wrote it). Peace & Love guys but more and more mainstream people are comming out against the government's conspiracy theory. 9/11 is the JFK conspiracy of our day. In this past month or two that I began monitoring articles here I've really learned a lot and made some nice friends. We just have a disagreement on what "Reliable Sources" are. I don't believe many of the sources in the Controled Demolition article are reliable. They rely on ONE person as an expert and ignore others, they consider "Popular Mechanics" & "Skeptic" Magazine as, "mainstream, peer-reviewed" journals. I subscribed to Skeptic since the beginning, met Michael Shermer twice, had letters published there and inspired Shermer to write the Holocaust issue (but he didn't evaluate the hard, forensic evidence). I learned my lesson, no ban is necessary, I'll impose it myself!!!! Peace & Love! :) Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • User said, Moslems are demographically taking over the Middle East and are infiltrating Europe. [6] I think we have, despite possibly good intentions, a user who's goals conflict too much with Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 13:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I have many good friends in Europe who are saying that (on my flickr site) and I tell them their attitude is the same as Hitler's toward Jews. Bill Clinton recently said that demographics is Israel's #1 problem. I'm just repeating facts. People in Europe are opposed to this infiltration as people in the U$A are opposed to infiltration by illegal immigrants. Ur making me look like a bigot! I'm the most open-minded tolorant person U can imagine . . . I have dated people of all nationalities, religions. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • What people say on Flickr or other chatrooms has no place on Wikipedia. If you want to contribute here, you need to cite sources like the New York Times, not Flickr comments. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I get the NYT delivered every day . . . there was an article several months ago about people leaving Holland because of the infiltration. My flickr friends hate Hitler but are acting toward the Moslums just like the Nazis in regards to the Jewish problem in Europe throughout the 19th & 20th Centuries. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009[edit]

Stop x nuvola.svg
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued fringe soapboxing and displaying no interest in complying with fundamental policies such as WP:NPOV. See also current WP:AE discussion. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.  Sandstein  14:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Raquel Baranow (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Here we go again with an unnecessary block by intolorant people. I was sincerely trying to improve the article (on the Talk-Page) at Controlled Demolition at the WTC, got ganged up on again. This is sooo Orwellian. The 9/11 fraud is much bigger that the JFK conspiracy . . . much easier to prove, more witnesses, more people affected (respritory disease) bigger elephant in the room (small debris pile, inches of pulverized dust throughout Manhattan, numerous witnesses and victims of bombs, no evidence of airplanes in Pennsylvania or the Pentagon, etc. etc. many prominant people questioning the government's conspiracy theory. The censors at the CD-Page are very intolorant, rigid, inflexible as to the sources they consider "reliable." They have erased what I wrote on the Talk-Page there but I re-wrote and rephrased it. (Lets see how long the above-link I provided works or if what I wrote will be archived.) The person who blocked me says he's NOT opposed to unblocking me as long as I'm topic-banned from commenting on 9/11. Makes U wonder why this 9/11 Topic is so sensitive that it requires special attention. Makes U wonder who these people really are and what they're afraid of?! Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You still haven't grasped how Wikipedia functions. I suggest you have another look at WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. PhilKnight (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

So sad! :( I'll try again in a coupla months. :( :( :( Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked[edit]

Okay, the comments by Raquel Baranow (talk · contribs) on this page have convinced me that her approach to editing Wikipedia is fundamentally incompatible with our goals and principles, and I have blocked her indefinitely. I do not object to an unblock by any administrator who disagrees, although I strongly recommend that, if unblocked, she is made subject to a 9/11 topic ban for which we have clear consensus here. Sandstein 14:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse this block. However, if another administrator unblocks her, I propose that the subject ban is extended to Holocaust and Holocaust denial related articles. Enough time has already been spent patiently articulating to Raquel why her propositions are inappropriate, and I don't see why any more volunteer time should be wasted. WilliamH (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Definitely no objection to keeping her blocked until a topic ban is formulated. It doesn't look likely that this editor will ever do much that isn't counter-productive if allowed to edit these articles freely. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC) No problem with the block, especially as the editor posted a (declined) unblock request that essentially repeats various 9/11 allegations and accuses other editors of covering things up.--Hut 8.5 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Entirely reasonable block. MastCell Talk 18:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected per email request from Raquel Baranow to allow a block appeal[edit]

Unprotected. Please note that since you have an external link to this page from www.666ismoney.com you should take care what's put on this talkpage, both for your own and WP's sake. Tonywalton Talk 11:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not familiar enough with this case to act on the unblock request. However, from what I've seen, it looks as if you could use a ban from pretty much any controversial, fringe, or conspiracy page if you are eventually unblocked. Fringe soapboxing is not welcome here. —Travistalk 17:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Raquel Baranow (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I'm really sorry I didn't get along with the editors at the 9/11 controlled demolition page. I sincerely thought I could improve the article with the latest and best information about the current thinking of those who beleive thermobaric bombs brought down the WTC. I realize now that this is probably the hottest topic on Wikipedia that has tremendous implications for all the school-children and people in New York City who experienced first-hand 9/11. The editors of that page are very strict, I jumped, naively into HOT water there. Others, at the Holocaust-page have been more sympathetic and tolorant, nevertheless, some want me topic-banned there too. I have many other innocuous interests that I'd like to contribute to. I have made a few contributions and have made several friends here (plus I donated some $$$ and will donate more). I only started editing here in the past two months. Several years ago I attempted to edit ONE page and was rude and immature. Now, I have a dialogue and consensus at that page for a re-write. I really like Wikipedia. I come from a family of educators. I look at the editors of Wikipedia as like the Guardians in Plato's Republic. The persons who blocked me have said they have no objection as long as I'm topic-banned from 9/11 & Holocaust articles. I have helped a little at the Holocaust page and believe I can work with them. I admit that the 9/11-pages are a third rail at the moment until more prominant people come out asking for another Official investigation. I sincerely appologize for any trouble I caused anyone and, I sincerely thought I was doing good. Please unblock me, I promise to tread very lightly if you only block me from the 9/11 articles. IMO: the 9/11 articles are soooo damaged they will require a major re-write. The Holocaust denier's page isn't nearly as bad and I think I can work with those editors. I'm going on vacation for a coupla weeks in a coupla days. Peace & Love! :) Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given the block and edit history, I don't see this user's absence as a loss to the project.OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Hello again. In reviewing the situation, I think TravisTX has the right idea. You seem to be editing in regards to a lot of conspiracy theories / fringe theories, and repeatedly taking the wrong approach on those articles. What I feel comfortable offering is this. To be unblocked, you would agree to be topic banned from all 9/11-related pages for 1 year, and topic banned from all conspiracy theory / fringe theory-related editing until you have edited actively in other areas for 3 months. (This may mean it lasts longer than 3 months, if you take long breaks from editing.) I hope this solution will let you continue to contribute and learn the ropes of Wikipedia without causing further problems. What do you think? Mangojuicetalk 18:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a different idea. Let the user name two or three articles they would like to improve, copy sections of those articles here to this talk page, and then demonstrate what sort of improvements would be made. If there is a demonstrated ability to improve an article, then the user can be unblocked, subject to the topic bans you have suggested. Jehochman Talk 18:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to ask for that myself, but Raquel, it might be a good idea since I may not be the one to ultimately review your block. But it would definitely be wise to be more specific about what kinds of editing you want to get involved in, other than fringe theories / conspiracy theories. Mangojuicetalk 18:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we don't really need her at Holocaust denial either. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Regarding Holocaust denial, there have been long-term statements by Raquel/Bruce on the website mentioned on AN/I. It seems highly unlikely that this user will change their tune. Wikipedia is not a social experiment. Their previous statements on wikipedia, now repeated in their unblock request, directly contradict their public support and active on-line promotion of holocaust denial literature, banned in several countries. Mathsci (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this user has wasted a lot of good faith volunteer time. I think the indefinite block should remain in force until there is a clear commitment to stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 19:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
As the blocking administrator, I note that this user appears to be the Raquel Baranow operating the website http://www.666ismoney.com (which links to this talk page). The content of that website strongly suggests that productive and neutral (or, indeed, sane) edits are not likely to be forthcoming from this editor if she is unblocked. I suggest that, if a reviewing administrator feels that an unblock might nonetheless be warranted, this should be discussed on an open forum such as WP:ANI.  Sandstein  22:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I promise NOT to edit or discuss on Talk-Pages anything related to the Holocaust or 9/11, U won't even hafta topic-ban me, U have my word. I reached a consensus on the Number of the beast page to edit a paragraph, which was my main intent several years ago. I am essentially new here. I have made minor edits to articles on Nevada Prostitution and on Nadya Suleman Octuplets but the entire page has been redone (I have a topic there about her sanity). I made a mistake on the Mammon article that I'd like to correct. I'm a BIG fan of Natalie Dylan and would like to update that article when something new happens (I provided her MySpace link). I was working on contributing to the Amanita Muscaria article. I'd also like to add a list of famous people who have taken LSD and will discuss that. I'd also like to contribute to articles about Transsexualism. (I had a sex-change several years ago.) The TS pages were filled with weasel words and unverified content but a friend & I edited it out. I'm working with others on revising the virginity article (I was a 40-year-old virgin). I have a lot of info on breech birth I'd like to add (I was born breech). Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

About your proposals:
  • Number of the beast: Considering the website that you operate, 666ismoney.com, I think that it would be best for you to stay away from that article
  • Natalie Dylan: MySpace links are not typically acceptable here
  • Transsexualism, Virginity, and Breech birth: WP:COI and WP:OR
With all due respect, a quick glance at your website leaves me with the conclusion that Wikipedia is not the place for you. In other words, thanks, but no thanks. —Travistalk 15:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The MySpace is like Natalie Dylan's website (I encouraged her to make a MySpace and I broke her MySpace cherry) . . . the author of the article fixed by submission 'cause I didn't know wiki-markup at the time. As for all the rest of Travis's comments: That's why Wikipedia is sooo absurd, an expert on a subject can't edit?!! I've been over this before, Travis, Ur wrong, experts can edit articles at Wikipedia. U can mock me and claim I'm not an expert or that I'm crazy but I'm not stupid (I'm a self-made millionaire and an expert on property tax liens). I wouldn't edit an article unless the source has been verified as "reliable" either through discussion on talk-pages or the source is obviously "reliable." Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Please. I did not say that experts cannot edit articles in their field of expertise. If Stephen Hawking wanted to edit Theoretical physics, for example, that would be acceptable. However, being born breech, having a sex change, or being a 40 year-old virgin does not make one an expert on said subjects. However, to reiterate a previous point: The fringe rantings on your website have convinced me that your suitability as a neutral, unbiased editor is highly suspect. And that is the last I have to say about this user. —Travistalk 16:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course, if Stephen Hawking did want to edit Wikipedia, we would still expect him not to use Wikipedia as a platform to publish new original work. Anyway, Raquel: I think that many of the other users on here are against me but I still think that you may deserve another chance at editing. I would want you to agree to my topic ban (against *all* fringe theories / conspiracy theories... to be safe, stay away from all controversial areas), but I now believe it should be indefinite, given the other concerns raised here. Given your responses I think I would want you to remain blocked for another week or so, during which time you should read as much Wikipedia policy and do some observation. I'm saying this because if you come back and edit inappropriately in any similar way, or if you violate your ban, I think you are going to be blocked again and will probably not get any more chances, so it's in your interest to be cautious, and take some time to learn about Wikipedia without making further mistakes. Your personal web page concerns me greatly but I see potential value to the project if you can keep those interests to yourself and away from Wikipedia. Mangojuicetalk 18:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the minimum requirement of good faith on this user's part would be to remove the cuttings-and-pastings to her talk page here and the link to here from her website, which seems to describe her as some kind of martyr. At the moment she still does not seem to understand the purpose of this encyclopedia. I personally would not encourage an unblock based on her editing record. It is unlikely that, with her regular video-casts from Tucson, she will change her exhibitionist behaviour in any way whatsoever. At present she has not described one neutral subject area where she could contribute something positive to this encyclopedia. Please, Mangojuice, take a look at her website and compare it with the negative content of some of her previous edits: the correlation is overwhelming. Wikipedia is not a social experiment. Mathsci (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove the cuttings & pastings as well as the reference on my website if U unblock me. Already I noticed someone else on the Controlled demolition talk-page is trying to submit evidence of Thermite from a scientific journal and is having difficulty with the editors. Can U imagine if someone substituted "anecdotal evidence" for "eyewitness testimony" on the Holocaust page!? That's the way the Controlled demolition page reads today. I noticed someone removed the MySpace reference on Natalie Dylan's page. I'm watching about 65 Wiki-articles and have made many reverts of vandalism. I have many more subjects I'd like to watch and add to. I have over 1000 books in my library (mostly on the Holocaust and kennedy assassinations). I'm 53 years old. Since I was a Breech birth I have done a lot of research at the medical library (many years ago) . . . it's time to update my Breech Birth webpage. Being a virgin for over 40 years and having had many virgin GFs has given me a perspective on it -- another thing I'm doing research on. (I'm aware of "Original research".) Getting back to the Controlled demolition, how can an article that substitutes "anecdotal evidence" for "eyewitness testimony" be "reliable"?! A bigot is someone who is irrational & obstinant, that's what many people (including my smart brothers-in-law) are when it comes to "conspiracy theories." They have a knee-jerk rections. Hitler, in Chapter 10 of Mein Kampf said it well: "The broad masses more readily fall victims of the Big Lie than to a small one . . . they will continue to doubt and waiver thinking there must be some other explaination." I have lotsa really good, smart friends, several of them are/were politicians, scientists, educators. Yesterday I did my income tax . . . 23-pages, an adjusted gross income of $41k, yet I paid no federal taxes (I paid $22k in property taxes), I own my house free & clear. I've got enough $$$ to do whatever I want. I used to be homeless (by choice) and have been to Europe three times and Thailand twice. My friends call me a genius but I can't spell or type well. U guys at the Holocaust Denial & Controlled Demolition pages are being intolorant and double-minded about what U think are "reliable sources." The two articles are a joke! I was stunned when I read them. The Holocaust Denial talk-page and archives are filled with ppl who say the article is biased and doesn't explain what Holocaust denial is. I'm a different and unusual person (attributed to being a virgin so long and breech birth) . . . I'm always running into personality clashes and being called crazy. I made a mistake trying to add my 2-cents to two articles here. I'm not the first. The solution is NOT to ban/censor people who disagree but work with them. If U don't wanna work with me on those two pages, fine . . . someone else will come along and say the same things as I. I will continue to monitor those two pages . . . so far, I have enough material for a book about censorship, Orwellian thought-control & double-think at Wikipedia all archived on my computer. Do what U wish but if U unblock me . . . I'll probably be watching over 300 pages soon, the least I could do is revert vandalism. I was gonna leave on spring vacation today but the weekend in San Diego is rain so I'll leave Saturday or Sunday. "They" crucified Christ (the Logos, if he existed) for telling the truth . . . IMO, that's what U are doing to me by blocking me. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

for telling the truth? You might want to read this. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Sorry, but I don't think that Wikipedia is going to suffer from the loss of one conspiracy-mongering holocaust-denying 9/11 truther. —Travistalk 14:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Raquel, but this response from you does not encourage me that you would be willing to take my offered terms in good faith and revise your approach to Wikipedia. Even if you had, I would have had an uphill battle to convince other admins to allow me to give you that second chance. Now, I think that possibility is gone. I'm sorry it worked out this way, but Wikipedia and you are just not well suited for each other. Mangojuicetalk 20:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Adopt/Mentor me, Please[edit]


As you can see, when I first started out on Wikipedia, I ran into trouble editing controversial articles. I've been blocked for a couple of years but have been checking into Wikipedia daily, to keep informed about things that concern me. I learned a lot in the meantime about proper editing. I have no real intent to edit any articles but I may post information for edits on uncontroversial articles. The first edits I will do on my Talk page, I'd like to delete a few things I wrote about myself. At the time of my blocking I was very naive and unbalanced. In the past few years, pictures I've taken have been uploaded by other editors and used in two articles (that I know of), many other pics I've taken have been uploaded by others but not used. Thank You! (BTW: my User Page is still blocked, which is why I wrote this here.) User:Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've spoken to this user's blocking admin and have his permission to unblock. I've agreed to unblock on the condition that this user find a mentor. Is anyone willing to step up?--v/r - TP 02:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Just an FYI, the {{help me}} tag is for requesting help using Wikipedia. Please do not use this template to request adoption. You have the appropriate template placed to show you are looking for adoption, but if you would like to speed up the process, please see the list of users currently adopting editors AndrewN talk 02:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC) (Edited 02:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC))
AndrewN, I didn't add the Help Template, TParis did, should I delete it? It may take time to find a mentor/adoptor, I don't mind waiting a few weeks, after that, I'll seek someone out. Raquel_Baranow (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I saw a few ppl 1, 2 I like who are adopting but am not allowed to edit their talk pages (I'm blocked from editing & sending users email) to request adoption/mentoring. Raquel_Baranow (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Pages I'd like to edit other than my Talk Page: This picture is spamming the uploader's website, it has been flagged but nothing has been done, I'd like to replace the pic after deleting the website from the image. Raquel_Baranow (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to comment HERE regarding article name change, I made a few other comments on the talk page a few years ago.
Like to post to the article talk-page a quotation with references for inclusion in this article. Raquel_Baranow (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to edit a couple of mentor's talk pages (or send them an email) to ask them to mentor me but I am blocked from editing their talk pages or sending editors/mentors an email. Thx! Raquel_Baranow (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I will contact Adam and Lionelt on your behalf and ask them to comment here on whether or not they would be willing to mentor you. If there are any other mentors you would like to consider you for adoption, please post them here and I will alert them to your request. Yunshui  09:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Bear in mind that this is the editors website: [7]. I think a voluntary topic ban from topics covered by this makes sense. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thx, when I first started out on Wikipedia, I was naive about how things worked . . . I learned my lesson and will not attempt to edit or even comment on 911 or Holocaust topics . . . I'm also aware of all the rules about Truth, Verifiability, Reliable Sources, etc. My goal is to edit my talk page and make a few suggestions (on the Talk pages) for a few pages I'm interested in. In the years I have been blocked from editing I have been watching several pages daily and have NOT had many urges to edit or "Talk" about anything, I'd just like the freedom to do so. Seems like a Monitor (of my activity) would work rather than a Mentor -- I don't plan on doing any fancy editing like adding photos to articles -- I have a hard time with wiki-markup/text editing, even adding a reference is challenging for me. Thx again! Raquel_Baranow (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to take you on.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  15:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Adam, thanks for accepting me, I love the way you organized your talk page. I tried to comment on your Talk Page but I am still blocked from doing that. Before I do anything, I will read all your tutorials. Very busy now having just returned from a one-month vacation. Raquel_Baranow (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked[edit]

I've unblocked your account now that you've found a mentor. Please understand that you may be re-blocked if mentoring is ineffective. Good luck!--v/r - TP 18:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Signatures in articles[edit]

I noticed you're having to remove your signatures from articles. Are you putting ~~~~ at the bottom of article pages, or are you clicking the "signature and timestamp" button (found between the italics and hyperlink button at the top of the editing window) when editing an article? Unless you're using some sort of plug-in to edit, those would be how your signature would get into articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thx Ian, I just put a message on my mentor's Talk page asking about this. I know there's a new edit page format that took place today, are we no longer required to sign when we edit??? I thought you were supposed to sign with the ~~~~ at the bottom of the text in the edit box. Raquel_Baranow (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
No, signatures have always stayed out of articles, but have been used in talk pages and noticeboards. A good guideline is to make sure there aren't other signatures on the page as well. If there aren't any, don't sign unless the page name starts with "Talk:". Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thx again . . . I wonder why I thought you were supposed to sign edit pages? I also asked my mentor if I was supposed to respond to comments on my Talk Page by others on my talk page or their's? Raquel_Baranow (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Where to respond honestly varies from user to user, and their mood. Unless they leave a note on their page saying where to respond, leaving a note on their page is not rude, but responding on your page instead is also considered efficient. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Raquel Baranow. You have new messages at WT:TW.
Message added 04:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ankit MaityTalkContribs 04:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian incitement[edit]

Please don't repeat the past. Disruptive comments like the one you made at that AfD make one wonder whether your supervised release from an indef block is justified. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Google search of "Palestinian incitement" (in quotes) returns about 44,100 results. If the article is deleted, where will "Palestinian incitement" be redirected? Not sure how I found the article. I think it's a good article ("a work of art") and complies with WP policies; I'll heed your "word to the wise" especially when the opposition on Wikipedia is 95% against me. See also this discussion regarding name change for the article.Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I can't quantify your opposition: I would guess that 95% doesn't know who you are, and (I intend no disrespect) that probably goes for most editors since there's so many. I'd never heard of Jesus Presley until tonight. It's possible that 95% of editors don't have much of a sense of humor, and wouldn't read "work of art" the way you intended, esp. since it's a heated discussion on a controversial topic, and honestly you didn't explain what "work of art" meant and why works of art (as opposed to articles about works of art, for instance) should have articles. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:James "Bo" Gritz, Called to Serve, Three Tramps JFK Conspiracy.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:James "Bo" Gritz, Called to Serve, Three Tramps JFK Conspiracy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Raquel Baranow. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by —Anne Delong (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Raquel Baranow. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by —Anne Delong (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Acharya S comments[edit]

Hi, Raquel. I have removed a comment you made recently at Talk:Acharya S, because it could be interpreted as violating the policy at Wikipedia:No legal threats. I don't believe you were personally trying to make a legal threat, but you should avoid repeating off-wiki comments by others that could be interpreted as legal threats. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. --RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

CIA activities in Cambodia[edit]

Hi, I wanted to explain a bit over your edit in the article about CIA activities in Cambodia.

First, I wanted to explain on socialism and communism. You say that Khmer Rouge was communist, nowhere in the article does it stay it was socialist. It's completely right that Khmer Rouge was a communist party. But it's not called a communist regime. The article on communism defines communism as a classless, stateless and moneyless society. You agree that this is far from the Khmer Rouge's regime, don't you? The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is also a SOCIALIST state, desperat being ruled by the Vietnamese Communist Party. As was the Union of SOCIALIST Soviet Republics, despite being ruled by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Constitution of the Republic of Cuba also declares it a socialist state ruled by the Cuban Communist Party. These countries never considered themselves communist. They consider themselves socialist, with the plan of inventing communism one day. This kind of government is called Marxism-Leninism.

Also, I can't see any point with mentioning that it was "communist", other than to denigrate communism as an ideology (a violation of Wikipedia's strict NPOV policy). Vietnam was a socialist state ruled by the Vietnamese Communist Party, and Cambodia was a socialist state ruled by the communist FUNSK. Also, we can look at the "friends" and the "enemies" of the Khmer Rouge and PRK. Except China and Romania, hardly any socialist countries supported the Khmer Rouge. Aside from that, most of the Pol Pot's "friends" were Western countries, such as the United States and Great Britain. Even the Stalinist hardliner Enver Hoxha condemned Pol Pot and called him a fascist. The USSR and most socialist countries supported the PRK. The USSR was the only country in the Security Council to recognize the PRK. The US, UK, and China refused to recognize it, and instead continued to recognize a government-in-exile called the "Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea", led by Pol Pot. --Te og kaker (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Te og kaker, socialism is an intermediate stage to communism: "A communist revolution is a proletarian revolution often, but not necessarily inspired by the ideas of Marxism that aims to replace capitalism with communism, typically with socialism as an intermediate stage. (see Communist revolution) See also, "The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved." Free Dictionary Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Good idea[edit]

Thanks for your suggestion at talk global warming, I already tweaked ver 3 with markup text so that the phrasing uses the phrasing in the supporting quote. You like? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and please keep them coming[edit]

Thanks very much for investing energy and time contributing thoughts on efforts to draft a new first lead paragraph for Global warming. Please note I just posted ver 5 of my idea, and would welcome further pro/con criticism. I'm attempting to ping everyone who has taken time to speak up after past versions. If I overlooked anyone, please let me know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks good NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for your work, I'll bet we haven't heard the end about "multiple lines," lol. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)