From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Alex Jones (radio) worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Please do not add WP:BIASed and unsourced claims to the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Loose Change (film). Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please do not add WP:BIASed, unsourced, and clearly false claims to the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, your user name suggests that you are evading detection as something. Another editor commenting on 9/11 issues? Perhaps an editor banned from 9/11 articles? In any case, as your edits to 9/11 articles have been reverted as BIASed and unsourced, an uninvolved admin might decide to ban you from the 9/11 articles, under the arbcomm decision. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evading Grid

Yup that is an anagram, a common method of generating a unique username. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talk • contribs)

It's not an anagram. But it supports your being a new user, so I withdraw the comment. You could still be banned from the 9/11 articles, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

EvadingGrid E vadi ngGri d E davi ngGri D E daviD ngGri DavidGingEr

[edit] Point of View

Is that man a Terrorist or a Freedom Fighter ?
Is that man a Investigative Journalism or a Conspiracy Theory ?

Wikipedia:BIAS

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talk • contribs)

World (and Wikipedia) consensus is that the 19 hijackers were terrorists.

Wikipedia consensus is that there is no evidence presented that Jones is an investigative journalist, but plenty of evidence that he's a conspiracy theorist. If you can find and present reliable sources that he's an investigative journlist, and add that to the article, then we can change the WP:LEAD to reflect that change. (Please note that claims on his websites are considered his word, and cannot be used to support claims that he's an investigative journalist.)

Wikipedia consensus is that Loose Change may be considered a documentary (even though it was started as a pseudo-documentary), but that the claims made in the film cannot be considered as "fact" and are not generally agreed to, even among Truthers. If you can provide reliable sources for the information presented in the film, those might also be included, but claiming the film reflects "fact" cannot be supported. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole concept that "the majority of wikipedians belive X" is behond the Pale; Extend that logic and realise that the majority of Wikipedian's dont belive in Erd's Number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talk • contribs)

The majority of Wikipedian's haven't heard of Erdős number (and you haven't copied the diacritical mark correctly). And I didn't say "majority", I said consensus, which suggests a supermajority of those expressing an opinion based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Truth is not a popularity contest :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talk • contribs)

"The Truth" is not the business of Wikipedia, only what can be verified. I prefer to choose verified statements which are true, if there's a choice, but I can't, under the rules, prevent others from doing otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Arthur

You took the time to give me a thoughtfull reply. Evadinggrid (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Evadinggrid