User talk:Bpell

9/11 conspiracy theories

Hi I see you raised similar thoughts to mine on this article some time back. I agree with what you wrote and see that others have made the same observation over time, but to no avail. I don't know if this is OK to do (contacting like-minded individuals to reach a consensus on a contentious article) or if you are still interested? But if it is OK, I wonder if I could ask for your involvement on the discussion page under Article neutrality and accuracy - the introduction [[1]]--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not add your personal commentary, opinions, or links that do not pass Wikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources, as you did with these edits to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am not Phil Farrand. I do, however, moderate some of the boards at Nitcentral for him.

Second, my edits were based on proper implementation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and not any bias. If you feel my interpretation or application of those guidelines is in error in some way, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you. Please feel free to explain in what my application of the rules was inaccurate or improper.

Lastly, when starting a new discussion, please remember to place it under a new section heading, and always remember to sign your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which will also time-stamp them. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the toolbar, since I never use it. I just type four tildes at the the end of my posts, and that does the trick.

As for sections, you'll notice when you look at a page in edit mode (like this one, for example), that the section titles have two sets of "equal" signs on each side of them. That's how you create headings. You can read more about it at Wikipedia:Heading#Section headings.

I did not say anything about how bin Laden acted. I said my edits were based on proper implementation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and that if you disagreed with this---that is, if you felt my edits violated the site's rules, then please explain how they did this, and I'll be more than happy to listen.

And btw, Welcome to Wikipedia!. :-) Nightscream (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never stated nor implied that 9/11 was done by a lone perpetrator, nor that conspiracies cannot happen, and neither does the article. That either I or the article have expressed these ideas seems to originate entirely from your imagination, since what both the article's content and what I expressed to you twice above bears no resemblance to either of these ideas. In fact, not only do conspiracies indeed happen, but I expressed this point on the 9/11 conspiracy theories talk page just two days ago, in this message.

What I have said---and this will now be the third time I make this point with you---is that my personal views on matters such as this have no bearing on my edits. The only thing that is relevant when examining article content or the work of an editor or editors is that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are followed, the relevant ones in this case being WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc. If at any point you feel that those guidelines are not being followed, such as the site's Neutrality Policy, either on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, the Mormons article, or any article, then you should be able to simply point out the specific passage or passages that you feel convey a bias or undue weight, or otherwise violate policy.

Lastly, please stop leaving unsigned messages on my talk page. Whatever method you think you're using to sign your messages, it's obviously not working, which you can see if you check your messages after saving the page. If you can't get whatever tool on the toolbar to work, just type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your messages. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles and their talk pages are not a forum for you to argue your personal viewpoints. Talk pages are solely to discuss ways to improve articles. If you wish to discuss any bias that you feel is exhibited in the article, that is a perfectly relevant topic of discussion for talk pages, since numerous policies and guidelines require articles to exhibit neutrality. Your personal conclusions about 9/11 and those who you feel do not share your viewpoint, however, are not.

If you feel that the article exhibits said bias, then I direct you the proper course of action, as I did above: Point out the passage or passages that seem to convey or imply the idea that 9/11 was not a conspiracy, or which you feel exhibit any type of bias, and we can discuss it then. But continuing to make this complaint, and refusing to follow through by offering such passages when others flat-out ask you for them, makes it impossible for others like myself to vet your accusation, which means we are forced to fall back on our default examination of the article. Examining the article, I see no passage that conveys that one explanation is "right" or another "wrong". It merely notes what the mainstream or official U.S. government explanation is, and what the alternative ones are. The mainstream or official explanation, it should be noted, is a conspiracy theory. I do not see any passage that indicates that that explanation or any other is "right" or "wrong".

As for referring to people who believe 9/11 was a larger conspiracy in "negative terms", I do not recall doing so in my discussions here on Wikipedia. But if you can point out where I did, again, feel free to do so, and I will take responsibility for such comments. By contrast, you referred to me in your last message to me (assuming it was me that you were accusing of referring to others in "negative terms") as "an extremist" and "mentally disturbed", which is certainly negative in itself, and a violation of Wikipedia's rules on Civility. I suggest you refrain from such language.

Take care. Nightscream (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The article in question does imply that 9/11 was not a conspiracy and that the official version is right..." One more time: The official version IS a conspiracy. The official version is that 19 hijackers carried out the attacks as part of a plan orchestrated by al Quaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden. That's a conspiracy. So saying that the article implies that it wasn't a conspiracy, but that the official version is right is a contradiction.

Again, if you can point out an actual passage in which this implication is made, then do so. But refusing to do so only conveys that you cannot substantiate this assertion. If you refuse to provide such passages, how are others supposed to respond to your assertion?

Sorry I misunderstood your other comment, though. Peace. Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent my comments, I never refused to point out the passages, I pointed them out often, and the section I refered to has changed, so that it is more neutral.--BlueRider12 03:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Please fix your customized signature as previously discussed [[2]]. Gerardw (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Mu (lost continent)‎. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Please understand that you can't use sources that don't discuss Mu to make an argument about Mu. Sources need to meet our criteria at WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Also, there are no myths about Mu. Dougweller (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Talk:Mu (lost continent) - please discuss your edits there, thanks. Also, please use edit summaries, see WP:Edit summary. Dougweller (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]