"

First I'm a little obsessive with unfounded criticism. Sorry about that, It makes me long-winded. I'm not at all obcessive  with this topic- which I could give two deuces about- once it is properly sourced and defined.  

User:Brangifer has a lot to say about me.  Perhaps one example of unreliable sourcing as described to show good faith? It shouldn't be difficult. I assumed good faith and ask for one example, never got.  No shred of anything to indicate good faith on his part except a WP:policy-based assumption. Is it an assumption of bad faith to ask for proof or evidence that should not be difficult to provide? Is is bad faith not to provide it? It not a search warrant I'm seeking.  He implies I have a pattern of it.  I have seen zero evidence to the contrary, so as far as I'm concerned, to me his edit make him comes across as a full-blown, straight-up liar.   

Read that carefully as I didn't say he is a liar (name-calling). It's just that without one specific example for his accusations against me, he surely come across as one with his recent edit. I've been assured this is not an attack and is an acceptable use.

""What you have provided on the article talkpage has been viewed by other editors as advocacy of a conspiracy theory.""  
Let me get this straight,  Rule#1 is that A conspiracy theory can have no evidence. Rule#2 There is none to have that's even remotely related. Rule#3 So none can be considered.  
It's a made up theory. However, (paranoid) people's crazy theories are usually based on some remote kernel of truth.  Kernels of truth in wild theories have documentation. It does not validate the theory and there is not reason not to consider current beliefs against past history. The source says 1970s which I pointed out, gets added to the entry, source disappears. WP is full of rule followers who can't think logically or realize when they are being made to lay down in the $hit sources they picked for themselves.

I provided public domain information documented by and available from unimpeachable sources as a hey look at this and tell me if it's it related to this subject (It is).  Then the accusations start.  Unfounded ones. 
I'm not advocating for any conspiracy. Not one of those four links did either.  The info was 40-50 years old.
Seen as advocacy of a conspiracy? 
Which conspiracy? 
And which other editors?  
Problem with sourcing? Which source?    
I need an example to show good faith.  This is not court but show me that the accusations have merit. With out one example, It proves they knew what they said about me they knew to be untrue. The concerns mentioned are made up any without any merit. Hence- the lie. 

It is a personal attack because I told him that these accusations were offensive to me, yet it continued.  My exact words were ""To accuse me of being a believer in this crap is offensive to me and is taken as personal attack."" I told this person numerous times that I am not a believer yet he continues to accuse me of being some nutjob is an attack.  ""Believers"" don't cite reliable verifiable unimpeachable sources or say the theory is complete BS. 

Posting that my sourcing is bad when there is nothing to show that, is an attack. It was not in good faith. It's made up because not one example can be provided to substantiate it or the good faith intent. If it was good faith, one example should have been able to be provided in order demonstrate and substantiate his good faith. If we had that, there never would have been a problem with what was said.  The comment is simply untrue as I've stated and he knew it. This is no difference of opinion as he has characterized it.

Look at it from my point of view, Would you like if I said?  
Go edit somewhere else. 
You are a full blown believer and pusher of the chemtrail conspiracy theory and your use of unreliable sources to do it doesn't exactly help your credibility?

If I have zero evidence how can I say it in good faith or without attacking you? 
You've said ""Baldly stating that another editor who has commented in good faith is a liar is unequivocally a personal attack, and is not tolerated."" How else does one responded to a bald-faced lie?
A barefaced (or bald-faced) lie is one that is obviously a lie to those hearing it.

My intent, since I came upon this piece o' crap entry was to hold other editors' feet to the fire to ensure good sourcing.  The entry needs definition and the current one is based on Stieg.  There is a source that has been in use for (7?) years that each of these expeienced editors have insisted on using and reverting back to. Rather than hold feet to fire -because no one will let m