Jump to content

User talk:FisherQueen: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
EdwardsBot (talk | contribs)
354,693 edits
No edit summary
Line 155: Line 155:
:No, I was hoping there was some way an admin could help clear that up. --[[User:Overkill82|Overkill82]] ([[User talk:Overkill82|talk]]) 20:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:No, I was hoping there was some way an admin could help clear that up. --[[User:Overkill82|Overkill82]] ([[User talk:Overkill82|talk]]) 20:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::I've given the user who accused you a chance to explain her reasoning... I think she's probably a simple vandal, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you ''are'' secretly evil! ;) If she doesn't say something useful in five minutes or so I'm going to undo all of her similar edits. -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> ([[User talk:FisherQueen|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/FisherQueen|contribs]])</span> 20:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::I've given the user who accused you a chance to explain her reasoning... I think she's probably a simple vandal, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you ''are'' secretly evil! ;) If she doesn't say something useful in five minutes or so I'm going to undo all of her similar edits. -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> ([[User talk:FisherQueen|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/FisherQueen|contribs]])</span> 20:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

::You must really stop answering on behalf of other people. User:Acroterion can perfectly well answer for herself. If you want to talk to me as you seem to do just talk to me directly. The best available sources for determining the truth of historical events are not and have never been major newspapers. Major newspapers have always served the interest of their owners and they function to control the public mind. They have always been organs of propaganda rather than scientific journals. Historical truth is determined by eyewitnesses, photographs, film etc. For example the port authority of New York has hundreds of hours of interviews with first responders at the scene of the 9/11 attacks. The port authority under the direction of Mayor Giuliani tried for as long as they could to make those tapes unavailable. Eventually under tremendous pressure and criticism they released them. It transpires that many of the eyewitnesses in these taped interviews testify to hearing numerous explosions in the twin towers and express the view that they believe the buildings were rigged with explosives. Now that is not a conspiracy theory, it is historical fact. But if major newspapers or television channels do not report that information does that change historical fact? Well in a way yes it does becuase history is whatever appears in the history books as well as the archives of the New York Times. But a true historian trying to ascertain the reality of an event does not rely on corporate media for his research. He or she is much too smart and canny mostly because having taken a university degree in History you are taught to go to different sources, not just mainstream ones. But most of all your main objective is to understand and establish what really happened. We have a historical record of 9/11: eyewitness testimony, video footage and still photography. Unfortunately, a great deal of the evidence is not reported and partly why is because in the United States as well as in Britain the major media outlets are briefed by the intelligence agencies and told what to do. Once again that is not conspiracy theory but verifiable fact. But wikipedia is so reactionary that even if I wish to state that the American Society of Engineers gave an Outstanding Achievement for Engineering Award to the architects and engineers of the twin towers for designing what were then the most robust skyscrapers in the world I am told that I am presenting a personal opinion. On the contrary I am stating a historical fact. But it is a fact that is uncomfortable because it contradicts the perception reflected in the accounts in the mainstream media that these buildings fell down due to kerosene fires and the shock of the planes hitting them. The buildings were designed to withstand multiple collisions of the largest passenger liners of their day. That's not a conspiracy theory, that is historical fact. But your wikipedia is not interested in historical fact but presenting the picture of the world presented by the mainstream media (at least according to your definition). But perhaps most of all what you should understand is that you shouldn't be stalking me or answering other people's talk pages when they have nothing to do with you. [[Special:Contributions/81.109.10.218|81.109.10.218]] ([[User talk:81.109.10.218|talk]]) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


== ''The Wikipedia Signpost'': 21 September 2009 ==
== ''The Wikipedia Signpost'': 21 September 2009 ==

Revision as of 00:13, 23 September 2009

FisherQueen
User Page · Talk page · Archives · Sandbox · Patrol · Templates


Did I delete your article? Try here first!

How do I talk to you?

I don't understand why you removed my changes to the article and can't figure out how to communicate with you.

If you think that I entered something that was "original research", please indicate what that is so that I could show that it isn't my original research.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachaga (talk • contribs) 19:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the boss of Wikipedia. If you have reliable sources indicating that your interpretation is one that is reasonably widely held, discuss them on the article's talk page- decisions about content are made by consensus among editors. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANi

There is something about you on ANI....[[1]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It must be noted that this user evaded his block by coming back to action. As you see, his IPs is changing everytime he logs in, which shows why he was so keen to have a checkuser made on him (the IP addresses are not the same). Shahid • Talk2me 17:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't appear to even be comprehending what 'edit-warring' is, or that it is the reason for her block. She also doesn't seem to comprehend the concept of 'sources,' or how they could solve her problem. Which is unfortunate, because understanding those concepts would solve her problem. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts on an MOS issue?

My gut tells me this is not a valid application of the cited policy, but I thought I'd get a few second opinions before proceeding. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I... don't know. What a fascinating question, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Van Jones

Re: "Please, don't add any more quotes to this talk page; they are not helpful"

I only think I added 1 quote, but you tell me that nothing I will ever say in the future is helpful? You also did not say why they are not helpful, you just pronounced a very self righteous tone, as though you are the arbiter of what is "helpful" and what is not helpful. Who are we trying to help? How is a direct quote not helpful. It doesn't matter who we help or hurt, all that matters is truth. This is supposed to be an unbiased article about newsworthy things that people say and do. I added a quote to a discussion page. You don't even want to discuss the virtues of including the quote or not including the quote, you just tell me to go away and never come back. I think this is very mean.

re: "If you think there is a fact missing from the article, just state the fact you think is missing, and cite your source."

The fact was the quote, and I cited the source. I put it into the quote page so we could talk about it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myclob (talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't that conversation happen a week ago? I think I said what I objected to on the talk page of the article, and only made a firmer warning when you put a second long quote on the talk page without specifying what fact you wanted to add to the article, or why, or what your source was. Quotes are not, in themselves, useful additions to the article or the discussion- it's an encyclopedia, so if you think that there's a fact missing, you need to identify what fact you want to add. I don't recall telling you to go away and never come back; perhaps I've forgotten saying that, or maybe you are confusing me with a different user. I'm not the only arbiter of helpful and nonhelpful, I'm just a fellow user with more experience, reminding you that we're writing an encyclopedia, so we really only need information of the type that would be useful in an encyclopedia article- not quotes that one might use to support a persuasive argument, which is a different kind of writing. Any other experienced user might have told you the same thing. You can discuss the information you think should be in the article about Van Jones at Talk:Van Jones, and you can sign comments by making four tildes- it looks like ~~~~. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to get defensive... I responded here first, and am in the process of reading through the Van Jones conversation. Thanks for being nice/cool.myclob (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


So are you suggesting that you should never be held accou8ntable for erroneous things you have said? Exactly who do you think you are? I dare say, Mary, you're not impressing anyone nearly so much as you impress yourself.Rain City Blues (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year. All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.

194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Cheney

I just thought I would respond to your posting on my talk page, where you asserted that it would be impossible for someone like you to be a Republican. I'm assuming you say this because you, like me, are gay. Of course, you seem to forget that Mary Cheney is also gay, and like you, a devout christian, and very much a Repugnant... err... I meant Republican.... sorry. Anyway, the point is that you have taken a particularly one sided POV in your bans placed against me for noting a historical fact about George Bush. I have to wonder why this is. Have I offended your deeply christian conservative 'big tent' values? I mean, what I posted is no less relevant than his recent visit to an aircraft carrier, which you banned me for having deleted after you claimed that the standard applied was 'anything that would be remembered 50 or a hundred years from now'. So, what other similarities do you share with Mary Cheney? Is your dad also a Dick?Rain City Blues (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

Almost everything in this message is false. I never said there are no gay Republicans. I did direct you to my userpage when you accused me of being a Republican blocking you out of political bias, because my userpage contains a box saying, 'this user is a Democrat.' I did not ban you- you are not banned, nor does any one user have the power to ban. I blocked you, but I did not block you, as you claim, for 'noting a historical fact about George Bush.' You were blocked for deliberately disrupting the encyclopedia, which you appear still to be doing. You were not blocked for making personal attacks, but I notice that you have made two such attacks since your block expired. I will check in on your contributions from time to time, and if you appear still to be making personal attacks or disrupting discussions rather than participating in them appropriately, I will block you again, for a longer period of time. I eagerly await being stripped of my admin status, which you assured me you would do when I last blocked you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disrupting? I stated a historical fact which I backed up with legitimate references. Personal attacks against whom? You're the one that personally abused your power to block to attack me. And you know what ? You do not intimidate me, you got that? You go right on ahead with your little block attacks, and I will continue to resist you. I'll appeal every block you make, I'll call you out on every mischarcterization, every lie, every falsehood. Bring it on, if you really want a fight. I haven't got the same privileges as you, but I do have a pretty strong argument. And I will never, ever back down, Mary. We'll be going back and forth like this for decades.Rain City Blues (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way? Tagging me as a Vandal is really inappropriate. I consider myself more akin to a Visigoth than a Vandal.Rain City Blues (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a fight; it is a cooperative enterprise, like building a great city. Fighting doesn't achieve anything; in fact, it keeps the work from getting done. I am not your enemy, but I am aware that you have deliberately disrupted the encyclopedia in the past, and are clearly stating an intention to do so in the future. I hope you'll choose not to- I notice that the work that you've been doing on Forum for Equality is off to a good start, though you need to add independent sources verifying that the group exists and is notable. You seem to have forgotten why I blocked you before- it was because you asked me to block you. Remember, you were breaking the rules on purpose in an effort to 'bait' an administrator into blocking you? You thought that you could then appeal to the arbitration committee and have that administrator stripped of their admin buttons. Since then, you've presumably tried to do that and discovered that you were in the wrong to break the rules. You speak falsely (again) when you say that I 'tagged you as a vandal'; you are not a vandal by Wikipedia's definition, and I don't think I've ever called you one. If I do lie, to you or about you, you have every right to correct me; I don't think I've done so thus far. Your message to me above is combative; so much so that some admins would consider it, in itself, a reason to block. Me, personally, I'd rather wait and see the edits you make to the encyclopedia. If you can get past your desire to see Wikipedia as a battleground and try assuming good faith of your fellow editors, you would be a useful addition to the community. If you can't, you'll make that clearer than you have. Please don't put any more threats on my talk page, though, although if you have any questions about Wikipedia policies, you are welcome to ask me, or ask any other experienced editor, or just look up the answers yourself. By the way, my name is not Mary, and Mary Cheney is not a person who I admire, so I'm afraid I do consider the name an insult. Please don't use it again unless it is your intention to insult me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, I'll try to stay within compliance with the civility policy. Mz. Cheney, may I politely request that you cease your numerous abuses of authority, including blocks placed on my account in an arbitrary manner, inconsistent application of Wiki policies, insistence that you are above those same policies and are incapable of error. May I ask, for the good of the Wiki community, that you resign your admin post, as you clearly have demonstrated a total disregard for the policies as they are written, and have instead decided to apply them only when it benefits your personal agenda? Your complete POV perspective and near total incompetence make you ill-suited for this position. Its a bad match, because you assume (mistakenly) that talking down to people as if we were children is going to excuse your foul behaviour. As a concerned Wiki user, for the good of the community, I'm afraid I will have to politely remind you of your incompetence and inability to properly execute the duties associated with your position until you back off. I intend to perform my duty as long as necessary, until you resign or cease your behaviour. Also, baiting you to abuse your authority is completely justifiable, as nobody is forcing you to violate wiki policy-I may extend the invitation, but you alone are responsible for taking that step, as you have done repeatedly. You are. Mary, a total disgrace to the wiki community. You pick fights and then act like you're above it all when it looks like you cannot win. More like a schoolayard bully than a teacher, and as well all know, the best way to deal with bullies is to make their lives hell until they stop.Rain City Blues (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've blocked Rain City Blues following Vary's report at WP:ANI#User:Rain City Blues, reposted from WQA.  Sandstein  18:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did warn him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Craig_Watkinson

Would you consider redirecting or merging this article to Craig Watkinson or One Life to Live right now? The article is obvious not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining. I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd. Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.Ikip (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a problem with a redirect; I didn't realize this was a significant person on the show. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will redirect this now and come back to you. Ikip (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked.

This barnstar is awarded to User:FisherQueen, for their dedication to comprimise and his ability to work with other editors to come up with amicable solutions which satisfy everyone. Thank you for taking the time to consider redirecting. Ikip (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonhelpful

Waddup! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.92.150 (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have received your request for attention and reviewed your contributions and talk page. Thank you for drawing my attention to the fact that the block on anonymous editing for your school had expired; I have renewed the block for the current school year. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dePRODing of articles

Hello FisherQueen, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Good bot! Have a cookie! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not fair: you never give me cookies. Just because I'm not a bot. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

How do I create footnotes for Wikipedia? The general directions say nothing about formatting or placement of numbers.The process I use on my manuscripts is quite different. Thank you. malaprop123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaprop123 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are detailed instructions at WP:FOOTNOTE, and templates for specific kinds of citations at WP:CT. To be honest, I often find the instructions a little too complicated, and end up just copying the coding from an article that already uses them rather than using the instructions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism from a child

fisher queen luvs it hard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breeanna mclaren (talk • contribs)

Revision history of User talk:203.10.224.94

Why did you undo the cleanup of this page. The stuff revomed was not useful and only encourages vandals to see their own work. Please dont undo again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.224.94 (talk • contribs)

It is not a 'cleanup' to falsify the whois data on the page. I invite you to stop doing so immediately. Since this ip has been the source of little other than vandalism, it seems likely that you are the person vandalizing from this ip, and so I am not inclined to allow you to change the accurate information into inaccurate information. I told you this already; I hope you will believe me this time. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Australian Government and the Australian Department of Defence are related in case you could not work that out. I object to your accusation of vandalism. I attemped to clean up the page to make it clutter free and accurate. I am sorry if this has offended you.

Yes, they are related. But the whois page should reflect the data that the whois search reveals, and not simply a related term. It isn't helpful to change more specific, more accurate information to less specific, less accurate information. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a stalker, I'm a conversationalist

Excuse me but are you the same user as User:Acroterion? 81.109.10.218 (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, she is not; that would be a violation of the sockpuppetry policy. :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is she answering a question directed to another user? 81.109.10.218 (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's called talk-page stalking, I believe. :-D —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Flight High School

There appears to be an edit conflict or war on that article. I am not sure if you are warring or trying to end the war. Be careful about the three-revert-rule. It looks like 3 or 4 people are fighting. It is hard to tell if they are taking sides. It looks unusual to me.--Iusepencils. (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On another note I added a section to the article called "List of Stubs" or something like that. I thought it might be appropiate because the article is more than 1 type of stub. You can do with it what you want.--Iusepencils. (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the edits in question? Several high school students have been trying to use the article and its talk page as a chat room this morning. There's no edit-war over content, in fact, none of the students in question have offered any meaningful content. There's no need to make 'list of stubs' a section- those are simply categories, and they get listed automatically at the very bottom of the page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'How do I talk to you?' Is a very good question.

I'm not trying to complain, but I was working on an article about a very credible, noteworthy semi-famous (famous in New England) person who has been written about in many publications and it was deleted in 1/2 hour, in the middle of my editing. I had left a note on the Talk page asking for a little time to work on it once O noticed the that it had been flagged for deletion.

I had a few links and references and was about to add another wehn it said the page didn't exist.

The article was about Christpher Puquette. A New England homebuilder who helped to shape the trades in new england. He is also an island missionary and was an Olympic athlete.

Is there some sort of misunderstanding on one of our parts? Please reply to 'timetravleisnotpossible'.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timetravelisnotpissible (talk • contribs)

I deleted an article titled Chris Pauquette, but it didn't make it clear how the person was notable, and it didn't cite reliable sources that would verify the person's notability. In content, it appeared to be a hoax, and its writing style was consistent with that of a bored high school student having a joke. When I looked for confirmation that an Olympic bobsledder / missionary to Tonga/ architect named Christopher Puquette was important in New England, I couldn't find any evidence that such a person even existed. Of course, I could be wrong, in which case, just put the links to three newspaper or magazine articles about this person here on my talk page, and I'll be happy to undelete the article. I don't know why you are asking 'how do I talk to you?' on my talk page- clearly, you have figured out how to talk with me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A wee sanity check – there was no 2004 Winter Olympics (2002 or 2006 were Winter Olympic years); surely someone writing an article on a real Olympic athlete from only 4 (or 8) years ago would have some idea when whatever happened happened? Timetravelisnotpissible (or ..possible - please do not use multiple accounts lest you be accused of sockpuppetry), why not apply your writing talents to creating good articles according to Wikipedia policy instead? Tonywalton Talk 09:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question about denied block appeal

Could you take another look at User talk:Kale Reeves? I wonder if you realized that when you denied the appeal and left the block indef, you were basically locking a kid out of Wikipedia forever as a consequence of a first block? I agree that the block should not have been lifted, but it doesn't seem to me that this offense calls for the death penalty. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kids who vandalize do sometimes grow up to be useful editors. But they don't usually grow up an hour after their childhood vandalism sprees. I don't think this is a person who would be likely to make useful edits this week, or who would know how to do so, and a look through her contributions doesn't reveal any attempt to do anything useful. If she wants to appeal the block again when she's sixteen and able to actually do something useful, she'll be welcome to- but edits like this make me think that maybe "Kale Reeves" is a teacher or parent that she's trying to make fun of. We block dozens exactly like this every day; some of them grow up and come back under different usernames, or get their childhood names unblocked. -11:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accused of sockpuppetry

How do I get my username removed from this [[2]] list? --Overkill82 (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You seem to have been added to that list by an anonymous editor who has added several other people. Are you, in fact, User:Elspeth Monro? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was hoping there was some way an admin could help clear that up. --Overkill82 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the user who accused you a chance to explain her reasoning... I think she's probably a simple vandal, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you are secretly evil! ;) If she doesn't say something useful in five minutes or so I'm going to undo all of her similar edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You must really stop answering on behalf of other people. User:Acroterion can perfectly well answer for herself. If you want to talk to me as you seem to do just talk to me directly. The best available sources for determining the truth of historical events are not and have never been major newspapers. Major newspapers have always served the interest of their owners and they function to control the public mind. They have always been organs of propaganda rather than scientific journals. Historical truth is determined by eyewitnesses, photographs, film etc. For example the port authority of New York has hundreds of hours of interviews with first responders at the scene of the 9/11 attacks. The port authority under the direction of Mayor Giuliani tried for as long as they could to make those tapes unavailable. Eventually under tremendous pressure and criticism they released them. It transpires that many of the eyewitnesses in these taped interviews testify to hearing numerous explosions in the twin towers and express the view that they believe the buildings were rigged with explosives. Now that is not a conspiracy theory, it is historical fact. But if major newspapers or television channels do not report that information does that change historical fact? Well in a way yes it does becuase history is whatever appears in the history books as well as the archives of the New York Times. But a true historian trying to ascertain the reality of an event does not rely on corporate media for his research. He or she is much too smart and canny mostly because having taken a university degree in History you are taught to go to different sources, not just mainstream ones. But most of all your main objective is to understand and establish what really happened. We have a historical record of 9/11: eyewitness testimony, video footage and still photography. Unfortunately, a great deal of the evidence is not reported and partly why is because in the United States as well as in Britain the major media outlets are briefed by the intelligence agencies and told what to do. Once again that is not conspiracy theory but verifiable fact. But wikipedia is so reactionary that even if I wish to state that the American Society of Engineers gave an Outstanding Achievement for Engineering Award to the architects and engineers of the twin towers for designing what were then the most robust skyscrapers in the world I am told that I am presenting a personal opinion. On the contrary I am stating a historical fact. But it is a fact that is uncomfortable because it contradicts the perception reflected in the accounts in the mainstream media that these buildings fell down due to kerosene fires and the shock of the planes hitting them. The buildings were designed to withstand multiple collisions of the largest passenger liners of their day. That's not a conspiracy theory, that is historical fact. But your wikipedia is not interested in historical fact but presenting the picture of the world presented by the mainstream media (at least according to your definition). But perhaps most of all what you should understand is that you shouldn't be stalking me or answering other people's talk pages when they have nothing to do with you. 81.109.10.218 (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FisherQueen&oldid=315614487"