User talk:New User Person

Welcome!

Hello, New User Person, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page is to discuss policy related issues, and should not be used to revive long-resolved 9/11 issues. If there is a new issue, please raise it at WP:FTN with a succinct comment, not a wall of text. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I see you didn't even bother to read the title of the section I posted. Otherwise you would realize that the subject of my post was a policy issue. New User Person (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Dress it up however you like, you are clearly arguing for undue weight for a fringe theory. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 03:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@New User Person: Did you see the reply at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015? You should be able to make a request if wanted, but my suggestion would be prepare a draft of what you want to say first. You could create User:New User Person/sandbox which is your standard sandbox with points that you intend to raise. However, if it concerns any aspect of September 11, 2001 attacks, please review the previous case first. The first few paragraphs there have links to the evidence, workshop, and proposed decision pages. The findings there seem innocuous and might be hard for a new editor to interpret since they appear to say nothing more than the obvious fact that everyone should be nice. However, that is standard wording, and what it really means is that people do not have to repeat old arguments—instead, a quick consensus can agree on whether a proposed change is desirable, and anyone attempting to override established procedures would be subject to sanctions. The discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#This page (9/11 conspiracy theories) violates the Wikipedia Five Pillars will not lead to anything because there is no actionable proposal that I can see. Instead, if some change were wanted, say at 9/11 conspiracy theories, a proposal should be made at its talk page. Disagreements about sources are discussed at WP:RSN, and disagreements about what is neutral are discussed at WP:NPOVN. Question about the treatment of something claimed to be a conspiracy theory should be at WP:FTN. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

There are no comments as such on the mentioned arbitration page above. Also, I have already tried to add this discussion to the 9/11 conspiracies talk page, but it was erased by a Wikipedia user there that feels his opinion has a higher validity than my own. I know I didn't mention that earlier, but trust me, I tried. This conversation isn't only related to the 9/11 conspiracies page, per se. I only used the 9/11 conspiracies page to make the basis of my point. The same exact point could be made off of a basis of Project Echelon, Project MK-Ultra, and the assassination of John F. Kennedy. New User Person (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I see there were some recent edits at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories where a very long post from three years ago was copied from the archive to talk, followed by another non-actionable comment. Suppose that instead of removing the text, other editors had said, "yes, I fully agree"—that would be pointless because what is needed is agreement about a proposal to change text in the article. It's only changes to articles that matter. The editors joining in at Village pump (policy) should know that the discussion is pointless, but a certain amount of shooting the breeze is reasonable on the village pump pages. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

FIX IT

MAYBE IF YOU WOULD FIX IT, THE LISTS ARE NOT SORTABLE YOU RETARDED MORONS