First Im a little obsessive with unfounded criticism Sorry about that It makes me longwinded Im not at all obcessive  with this topic which I could give two deuces about once it is properly sourced and defined     has a lot to say about me  Perhaps one example of unreliable sourcing as described to show good faith It shouldnt 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 WPpolicybased 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 Im seeking  He implies I have a pattern of it  I have seen zero evidence to the contrary so as far as Im concerned to me his edit make him comes across as a fullblown straightup liar     Read that carefully as I didnt say he is a liar namecalling Its just that without one specific example for his accusations against me he surely come across as one with his recent edit Ive 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 is that A conspiracy theory can have no evidence Rule There is none to have thats even remotely related Rule So none can be considered   Its a made up theory However paranoid peoples 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 s which I pointed out gets added to the entry source disappears WP is full of rule followers who cant 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 its it related to this subject It is  Then the accusations start  Unfounded ones  Im not advocating for any conspiracy Not one of those four links did either  The info was  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 dont 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 Its 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 Ive 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 doesnt exactly help your credibility  If I have zero evidence how can I say it in good faith or without attacking you  Youve 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 baldfaced lie A barefaced or baldfaced 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  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 me change it I am making them lie in this stupid source by forcing them to use it I used a perfectly cited sentence from the source they seemed to hold so dear With it I crushed their definition of the subject They dont like it I believe this may what the editors are referring to unreliable sourcing and if so that is also unfounded as they established that source as reliable not me I found that the source was being abused as bad as the source is and tried to correct it  Its a source the article relies on and that each of the editors of it has been reverting back to as I said for years As you can see my efforts have paid off and thing are changing ReliablesourcesNoticeboardBradSteigerbook added today after last revision and ban  Most of what I wanted to change is going or will go though only because I want to make them lie all up in that crappy source whos abuse by so many highly experienced editors has been status quo for so long Holding feet to fire  They had the chance to hold their own feet  This entry needs to be shaken up  If not by me by someone If status quo is to remain in that entry it needs to be challenged and be defended and with proper sourcing This fringe topic is getting too much attention and it needs to go be sensibly fixed or be made a subsection under contrails since that is where all of the undue weight and photos in this entry already are