Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This user has been on the English Misplaced Pages for 15 years, 8 months and 17 days.
This user has been on the German Misplaced Pages for 18 years, 5 months and 25 days.
<11,000
This user has made fewer than 11,000 edits.
This user may have a strong personal viewpoint on some issues, but strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on encyclopedic content about controversial topics.
This user, as a general rule, will ignore questions about their real life.
On February 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dresden Without Nazis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
So, you contradict yourself, while saying that my arguments are not well thought through?!?And since when do you need independent sources to know somebodies opinion? Don't they know their opinion best themselves? That wasn't very well thought through either. I think it would be better if you keep your comments to the article and the topic, and not other editors, if for no other reason that sheer ironic overload. Can wee agree on that, at least? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
"And since when do you need independent sources to know somebodies opinion?" - We do not need independent sources to know someone's opinion, but without an independent reliable source reporting on it, the opinion is not notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages.
Per WP:Reliable sources, news sources are preferable to opinion pieces (which can be used under certain conditions, as explained on the policy page). As there are numerous news sources reporting on the issue at hand, i.e. on 9/11 conspiracy theories, an opinion piece is not acceptable here, because we should use the best sources that are available, of course.
Well, obviously news sources are preferable. So find a news source, then. Good luck finding a news source that discusses conspiracy theories. :) Or are you in fact claiming that the statement in the article is incorrect? You was asked this, and didn't answer. But you didn't replace the source with a better one, instead you claimed that the source was a bad source and should be removed because the author was conservative, which of course is complete nonsense.
You are of course welcome to point out logical fallacies that others make, even though your arguments are full of them. But it looks a bit silly, just so you know. But since you now to not discuss editors and keep away from personal comments, I'll have trouble in assuming good faith in your future personal comments towards other editors. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
We don't need any source there, because the section is a summary of the sub-article. You can find the news sources there. If you want to create more links to Cinnamon Stillwell's texts on the net, please use your own website. Cs32enTalk to me17:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Here you fail in assuming good faith, and also imply that I'm conservative, which is an insult. That breaks Wikipedias rules. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
