User talk:TruthSeeker1234

The Neutral Point of View

When I came to Wikipedia, I learned that writing from the "neutral point of view" was one of the "non-negotiable" requirements. I recommend every one take the time to read these passages:

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." ^[1]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles.

Explanation of the neutral point of view

The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.

A Brilliant Expose

[1]..on the level of attention that facts are being given in Wikipedia. Ed could have written a whole article. He was loved. SkeenaR 06:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed has now been flushed down the memory hole. I hope someone saved his barnstar. SkeenaR 06:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed is back.[2] SkeenaR 06:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or not. --Physicq210 23:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I used a sockpuppet, never again

I am sorry to have used a sockpuppet, but I had to in order to make my point. I created a character named EngineerEd who was an insulting, uncivil jerk, yet who supported the official story of 9/11. Never did any administrator warn Ed about being uncivil. Huysman even awarded Ed a Barnstar for "tireless work on refuting the conspiracy theories" or some such. Ed did get a note about "why we require citations", but then Ed went ahead and put the bit about the "Fuji Towers" into the article anyway, without a citation. Ed claimed the Fuji tower in Houston had collapsed similarly to the twin towers. This was completely fabricated, unsourced, comical even. And yet, because it supported the official 9/11 story, it was allowed to remain in the article for days, despite numerous edits taking place during that time.

Then, a few days later, using my correct name of TruthSeeker1234, I made an edit to the article in good faith, inserting a passage about the New York Times article, and the metalurgical report. Reputable, mainstream sources exist for the material in that passage, and I was about to add the citation when, POOF, 1/2 hour later, the passage had been deleted.

EngineerEd's bogus Fuji Towers claim was still in the article. A false claim with no documentation was left in the article because it supported the official story. I had made my point, it was time to confess, and confess I did. Here's the conversation that took place on EngineerEd's talk page:

Interesting you think Ed deserves a barnstar Huysman. I think he's a fake. Not one citation, nothing. TruthSeeker1234 07:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly; time will tell if my barnstar was premature. However, the fact remains that 9/11 conspiracy theories are false. -- Huysman talk| contribs 15:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just because your findings and expertise are not in Truthseeker's favor. I say the barnstar was well earned. Keep up the good work! --Physicq 210 05:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Or, maybe it's because I am a sockpuppet, and I completely made up the stuff about the Fuji Towers. EngineerEd 00:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Facts with documentation are deleted immediately if they do not fit the official story, yet Ed's BS survived and got barnstars. Let us never forget - as soon as my point was made, I "turned myself in". I didn't have to do that. The birth and first several edits of EngineerEd were made while I was at a hotel in Cincinnati Ohio, 2000 miles from my home. Check Ed's first IP adresses and you'll see. I could have left them at that and never been discovered.

I object to the labeling of EngineerEd's edits as "malicious". They were not malicious. In Ed's mind, Ed actually believes he is doing the right thing. Ed would tell you he was editing in good faith. If inventing a false building collapse helps reassure people that steel building collapses are common events, then it has served a noble purpose. This is how Ed thinks.

As TruthSeeker1234, of course, I say Ed's tactics are rubbish. The article should be written NPOV, and using only reputable mainstream sources. It is the administrators willingness to allow deletion of facts about 9/11 collpases, when they don't support the official story, even if they are properly soucred, THIS is what drove me to document the bias as I did. I hope you all can understand, and I hope that the fact that I intentionally "gave myself up" will be a mitigating factor in considering lifting the block against me.

TruthSeeker1234 07:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo TruthSeeker! You have revealed to us the sickness at the heart of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I think Wikipedia is too far gone - the case is terminal. Seabhcán 09:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For exposing the hypocrisy of some editors.Seabhcán 09:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed the Strawman?

Truthseeker1234 was found to be using EngineerEd as a strawman sockpuppet and then inserted deliberately misleading information into articles. This block was for those reasons and is a just block.--MONGO 19:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, EngineerEd was much more than a strawman. Certainly, Ed's specific claims about specific building collapses were fabricated, and could then be refuted by any pro-science editor, in classic strawman fashion. But even though the SPECIFICS of Ed's claims were false, the GENERAL implication he made was perfectly consistent with the offical story of 9/11, i.e. that steel buildings collapsing is a known, understood phenomenon.

The opposite is true. Steel framed skyscrapers have never collapsed like this, from fire or any other reason, before or after 9/11, (except by controlled demolition). All of the official government papers, including FEMA, NIST and 9/11 Commission, all of them imply that the 9/11 collapses were not unusual. That is the reason my "sociology experiment" proved what it proved. And it is why, on a deeper level, EngineerEd was not a strawman.

Ed was a caricature of those who will disreagrd the facts when they conflict with deeply held world views. In this case, it is the deeply held world view that government officials simply could not, would not do such a thing as murder their own citizens to justify war. I think the historical record is replete with examples showing how false this particular world view is.

What I wanted to add to the "Collapse" article

I wanted to add a section to the article called "Collapse Features". This section was to simply list the interesting characteristic features of the three building failures, features I believed to be beyond dobut, such as:

- the sudden onset
- the collapse times
- the symmetry
- the pulverization
- the pyroclastic flows
- the horizontal ejection of steel members
- the squibs
- the molten metal

[3] Lovely pictures could of course go with each of these observed features.

How on Earth could it be controversial to want to add that to the article? I was not trying to include any explanatory theories for why any of this occurred, those could go in other sections. What is wrong with presenting the visual record, along with a series of observations that is totally unprecedented, i.e. extremely interesting to the reader?

TruthSeeker1234 06:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 April 2006 I added this [4], which was immediately deleted:

The towers collapsed at nearly free-fall speed. According to the 9-11 commission report, the South tower came down in 10 seconds [5].Independent researchers have measured it closer to 15 seconds [6].

WP:NPA, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:NLT

It's a good time for you to read WP:NPA...you have a problem with the message, then address that...do not attack the messanger. No vandalism has been committed either. There is a distinct difference from what you think is vandalism and what is actually efforts to ensure unencyclopedic and unproven allegations and original research out of article space. Furhtermore, no one here is mandated to reveal their true names...and your comments about submitting this to an "independent arbitration service" indicate to me that you could possibly be threatening legal action...an indefinitely blockable offense. There is zero proof of controlled demolition...what part of that do you not understand? I have yet to see you provide one ounce of proof of anything. Lastly, this is the discussion page for this article...we don't need to clutter up article space with a bunch of fact tags...they are ugly and unnecessary.--MONGO 15:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A great example of MONGO's bullying tactics there on 24 April 2006. MONGO doesn't want fact tags because they "are ugly and unnecessary". At the time, the article had all sorts of uncited false assertions.TruthSeeker1234 01:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I should point out that we have a three-revert rule that you may be violating. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never violtated the 3RR, never, not one time, and I believe that Tom Harrison's warning here was intentional, malicious intimidation. I have repeatedly requested that Tom Harrison supply documentation for this outrageous warning, and he has failed to do so. As you can see below, this has caused others such as Huysman to assume I violated WP policy. I demand a retraction from Tom Harrison.TruthSeeker1234 20:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ST911 article

Hi TruthSeeker, Sorry to hear that you have given up on the collapse article, but I am interested in your proposed article on this for ST911. I'll be interested to read it (or lend any help, if you need) you might also be interested in the curious fact that Mongo works for Homeland Security [7]. It highly likely that he is just an honest HS worker who likes to edit Wikipedia during lunch break, but it is a curious fact, given the US security services public declarations that they intend to 'control the new fronteers of cyberspace'. Seabhcán 10:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Published?

Where?...it'll be an interesting read...can you throw me a link if web based or let me know when I'll be in print?--MONGO 10:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know too. I really want to see this. SkeenaR 00:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette

I don't think the Wikiquette page is usually used for dialogue, but I thought I should tell you that I have objected to your use of the edit summary to call my work vandalism. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#12 May 2006. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

See the definition of vandalism WP:VAN...if you refer to others edits as vandalism again and it doesn't conform with the definition, you will be blocked for disruption. WP:BLOCK, WP:CIVIL are areas you need to review.--MONGO 06:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Center

Hi. May I ask that you kindly refractor your statement conerning alledged vandalism..? [8]Such comments are unacceptable when a long-time contributor is acting in good faith. -Zero^Talk 18:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By Mid May I had been openly accusing Tom Harrison of vandalizing my work. I stand by this accusation, as he often deleted factual statements that were referenced to mainstream reputable sources.TruthSeeker1234 16:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what Tom Harrison was doing. An the editor that believes himself to act in good faith and thus assist the encyclopedia can not possibly be accused of vandalism. You have learned nothing from this perdicament. Nevermind, this block will give you plenty of time to think it over. -Randall Brackett 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

I have filed a request for Arbitration about you and your behavior on Collapse of the World Trade Center.[9]--DCAnderson 21:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Since you strongly dispute my case summary, and I am only involved in the case in my capacity as a clerk, I have withdrawn it. --Tony Sidaway 17:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicions

I don't use sockpuppet accounts, and you are bordering on disrupton. I have requested that one more person that refers to editors there as being a vandal they be blocked from editing. Furthermore, ask Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser if you think I use a sock account. I recommend you read through WP:CIVIL before you make anymore gross mischaracterizations.--MONGO 19:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

I am sick and tired of your incivility and you have been warned repeatedly. I was making a comment and you're typical snide response was as shown here:[10]. You have told people in threatening manner they are going to be "published", repeatedly referred to others content disputes as vandalism and no matter how many times you are told not to, you continue. Read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before you return to edit this website.--MONGO 19:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

falshback! --Striver 22:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo has started a review of this block. [11] Seabhcán 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Thanks for clarifying. Good luck with your work. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to 9/11 conspiracy theories, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. mboverload @ 05:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to 9/11 conspiracy theories. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. mboverload @ 05:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease pushing your point of view on our articles. Unless you can prove that it was yellow hot metal, it should say it could be. Please cease before you need to be blocked again. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. mboverload @ 06:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Take a look at this and [12], thanks.--Striver --Striver 10:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work

I happened to come across the 9/11 Wikipedia pages. They are a disgrace to this place, they've got nothing to do with documenting the knowledge we have of the 9/11 events. I did notice that you are one of the few who at least portrays a desire to formulate a coherent, consistent and complete story, and that the amount and kind of opposition you get must be bewildering to any objective observer, not just me. In fact, I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia allows topics to be hijacked (no pun intended) like that: it looks like this is a case in which Wikipedia's philosophy and openness is abused and distorted in such a way, that the opposite effect is achieved. The only solution I can see, is to get more rational people involved in editing these pages, so as to at least statistically reduce the noise from subjective contributors. So, if you need help, let me know. ;-) Hppnq 06:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have indefinitely blocked you for malicious vandalism, through your EngineerEd sock puppet. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Brilliant Expose

[13]..on the level of attention that facts are being given in Wikipedia. Ed could have written a whole article. He was loved. SkeenaR 06:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed has now been flushed down the memory hole. I hope someone saved his barnstar. SkeenaR 06:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed is back.[14] SkeenaR 06:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]