Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- malo(tlk)(cntrbtns)02:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please use talk before editing further, when edits are reverted many times, it usually means you should go to talk, explain your edits, then discuss them with other editors to reach a compromise. --Wildnox02:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DemosfoniThere is a 3-time reversion rule. You can put it back twice, but the 3rd time, I win. Nice try.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Demosfoni (talk • contribs) .
Please don't bring up 3rr, as nobody has violated 3rr except you(you can't add something more than 3 times either). Also please take notice of the fact that I'm not at this time reporting you for it, as I hope that there will be a compromise without need for blocks. --Wildnox02:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a section to the article that was removed by Rosicrucians and you. Then I put back my change and one of you reverted the entire article. Don't give me that bullsh*t. I added. You took away. If anyone, you should be blocked from trying to censor my changes. Demosfoni
The 3-revert rule: undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. I did NOT undo the actions of another author. My changes were UNDONE by a couple others and I tried to put them back. I was ADDING content, not removing. I think I understand the 3-revert rule well and I also see how this technology is being misused against me. Demosfoni
Repeatedly adding the same passage back in against the consensus of other authors is also considered a violation of 3RR. You're invoking an edit war, and since there hasn't been a single editor that reverted you three times on their own, you'd be the one in violation. In situations like these, the admins prefer that you hash it out in the talk pages before moving forward, otherwise you tend to get blocked for things like 3RR or WP:Point--Rosicrucian02:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer to your question can be found in the way you phrased the question. In any case, I am appealing this bizarre and frustrating incident. I believe that my changes are informative and important. Just as those who disagree with me think they are not. Demosfoni
There's nothing to appeal. Nobody's reported you. If you start up a discussion on Talk:Loose Change (video), I'm more than willing to see if we can achieve consensus. It's just that a radical refactoring of the article like that really should be better supported.--Rosicrucian03:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those last two sentences were a perfect example of why I said before "I hope that there will be a compromise", and down below is quite possibly a big step toward it.--Wildnox03:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One good point of the video is that the towers fell at nearly "free fall" speed. Considering the fact that over 100 floors would be "pancaking" together as the buildings collapsed, the idea that there would be no resistance to slow down the progress defies logic and physics. It is this fact alone that truly makes the idea of controlled demolition a serious possibility.
A leading physicist at Brigham Young University, Steven E. Jones paper,video, points out that in the many videos that were taken of the towers as they burned one can see a bright orange fluid pouring from the skyscraper. This was originally thought to be molten aluminum from the plane. However molten aluminum does not burn as molten orange but as molten silver. His hypothesis is that thermate which does form a molten orange fluid was used to cut the cement columns of the towers and the steel reinforced core. The Loose Change video surmized thermite was used. Thermate is a much more powerful version of thermite (created by adding Sulfur to the mix).
His hypothesis is strengthened by the fact that huge amounts of molten Iron and Sulfur were found at the base of the towers demolition, even Tower 7 which was not impacted by a plane. The NIST report does not even mention the existence of molten iron AFP. The evidence of thermate was removed when the government cleared away the area and shipped all remains of the towers to be melted down and sold internationally evidence.
My sources are Steven E. Jones (google it if you must) and the Loose Change 2E Video. I don't see this as a reason to delete the entire passage. I am not the one abusing the 3-RR rule here. I am simply trying to add content. I should not be blocked from doing this. -- Demosfoni03:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC) (BTW, who made you keeper of the flame?)[reply]
Ok, cite them in the bit above, see WP:CITE on how to do this in wiki. As for 3rr: 3rr covers adding content 4 or more times as well, as it is ment to prevent edit wars on either end. Also it refers to sole users, not groups(so if 4 different users revert no violation, but if one user reverts 4 times block). Personally I wish they would change it to be called the 3 edit rule, as that description would better fit its application. Also what do you mean by "keeper of the flame"? --Wildnox03:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wildnox, you don't own this web page. I don't think you understand the degree to which you and others are abusing the 3-RR system. Perhaps you, Rosicrucians and Tom are all sock-puppets to the same troll. My post is NOT controversial, it is SUPPORTIVE of the video. You want to cite links to people that contradict the video with poorer evidence than the 3 paragraphs I wrote? I really don't approve of your gestapo-like tactics. Demosfoni04:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am truly sorry that you don't enjoy speaking to me. I don't see why you think I am acting as if I "own this web page". I'll assume for now it's for the suggestion that you cite your sources. You see, proper citation is a requirement on wikipeida. Content added is supposed to be sourced to maintain the quality of wikipedia. Also how are any of us abusing the system, I see no abuse here at all. Just because you misunderstood the Three revert rule, and were blocked, does not mean anyone abused the system. Finally, do not accuse anyone here of sockpuppetry or trolling, as that is a violation of Wikipedia:Civility, but as a response to that: If you check all of our contribution histories you will see that all of us are established users, with massively different histories and interests, which on its own is evidence agaisnt sockpuppetry. --Wildnox04:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a dick (look it up) you will post yet another useless comment, ignoring what I have said over and over again. It is an ABUSE of the 3-RR rule to remove someone's ADDITION by reverting it back. Whether you guys work as a team or alone, it is an ABUSE. That is it. I am ending the conversation now. Whatever you post in my talk section I will remove. Demosfoni04:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I know that you are trying to goad me. Ha ha ha! How polite can you be? Such a pathetic farce.
Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Wildnox05:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wildnox I love you. I really do. You are so special. Let me count the ways. First, you like authority. I really like that about you. You are not a tool of the right wing at all. And lastly, I believe your adoration of heavy metal really shows your true sensitive nature and your desire to befriend all living things. Have a special day. You deserve it. Kiss kiss. Demosfoni05:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't assume, or pretend for that matter, that you know anything of my political affiliation or preference. I have given no indication of my political preference here or anywhere else in wikipedia, don't assume that my single revision to your edit was due to any political influence. Don't insult my taste in music, or assume it is any indication of my personality. I have tried to help you in this situation, even after countless personal attacks. It disturbs me, though it comes as no surprise, to see someone act in a manner such as yours. I'm done helping you, trying to explain the rules to you, or even so much as listening to you at this point. Say whatever you wish to me, unless you can write something of substance, your banter will fall on deaf ears. Know what? I'll enjoy my "special day", while you enjoy your block. Kiss kiss right back cupcake. --Wildnox05:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You really should check out WP:RS as Tom Harrison suggested. Some tips though:
SourceWatch is a wiki, and wikis referencing other wikis is bad research. If a SourceWatch article references evidence to back up its points, then you should read the original article and then cite it as a source.
Blogs are not valid sources to cite as evidence. They're okay to link as examples of dissenting opinions, or as commentary, but they are not evidence in and of themselves. As with wikis, read the articles they reference, then cite the original article rather than the blog.
I don't think deleting someone's work wholesale for faulty references if valid. I guess I'll just have to re-insert it and you guys will delete it until one of us gives up. For someone who quotes the "rules" you guys sure don't follow them (i.e. "do not delete other authors work without consulting them first").
See the article's talk page and edit history, neither I nor Rosicrucian deleted your insert, it was removed by RoyBoy, and part was reworded and included elsewhere in the article. Additionally faulty references were not the reason the insert was removed, it's just that is one of the problems with the bit you keep inserting. Which policy page contains "do not delete other authors work without consulting them first"? --Wildnox04:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wildnox, I hate to have to teach you etiquette because you are already so good at it, but since you requested the information and appear to be naive on how Wikipedia works, here it is. I've highlighted certain passages for your benefit. Your welcome.
The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.
Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily:
Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an
edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather
than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making
significant changes that other users might object to. The Three Revert
Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession. If you encounter
rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond in kind,
and do not make personal attacks.
First step: Talk to the other parties involved
The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue
on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page,
or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry
on a dispute on the article page itself. When discussing an issue, stay
cool and don't mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective
into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other
person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.
Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process,
talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied
before moving on to the next forum.
Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are
trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make
people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from
effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast,
sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even
if not immediately successful, shows that you are interested in finding
a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies.
I think that Rosicrucian, Wildnox, and JimBob (or whatever his name is) should print this out and post it above your PC monitors with scotch tape and then highlight the lines that I underlined. Okay? I am going to try to add the text that I added twice before. Before you reflexively delete what I post, I suggest that you read the text above, especially the last paragraph, because I think it directly affects your guys ability to work within the Wiki policy. Should I get blocked again, I will have to take it up on appeal (again). I really hope we can work something out.
Firstly is never says "do not delete other authors work without consulting them first" thas was an is a misquote. Talk to the other parties involved done, you're the on who has not once entered the articles talk page. Now as for Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it, if you look at the edit history on Loose change I never once removed the section, my only revert was fixing collateral damage caused by the other reverts. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise and failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it., see the article's talk page, there is a discussion about the section you added, part has even been included in the article. It is good that you mention the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes policy, as I was considering bringing this issue to mediation. --WiIdnox13:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article's talk page? Actually I did not know that. Why would articles need to talk. Oh, you mean discussion. Ooops, my bad. I see you guys were justifying it. Demosfoni14:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a bit of an idea for this that might help solve this problem. Your issue, as I see it(sorry if I misunderstood), with the page was the lack of a rebuttal or balance to the criticism section. If I am correct about this, what we may be able to do without violating WP:NPOV, WP:OR, or WP:CITE would be to include a counter critcism section, and list and explain websites, experts, and authors who have, for lack of a better word, criticism of the criticism. As for the content from your original insert, a small portion of it has been adapted and included under the World Trade Center collapse section of the article. The rest of it, in my opinion, shouldn't be included in the loose change article, but should be included in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, that is assuming that the content isn't already there. --Wildnox20:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I can sympathize with people who think the criticisms section is a bit unbalanced. It's riddled with borderline OR and needs a significant trimming and re-evaluation. We also (as I stated on the talk page) need to list what changed between the original and 2E, and between 2E and the recut. We'll have to do likewise when the final cut comes out next month. Being an article on the video itself, the revision history is more important than "debunking" it, and it's completely absent while the criticisms section is larger than any other.
So we need to look at what better belongs in other articles, make better use of the Main Article tags, and bring the focus back to the video itself. Roy and Tom have been heading in that direction, and I unfortunately haven't had the time to take a long hard look at it and put some effort in.
I just don't feel what Demosfoni is doing is the right way to go about it. I could possibly go with what Wildnox is suggesting, but again it's going to have to be properly sourced (and I really was just trying to be helpful in pointing out how to get around things when I said that above) and it's going to have to be commentary directly on the video itself, not just sources that support the video's claims.
And as I just said, I believe we should hold the criticisms to the same standard.
Thanks for uploading Image:Wtc-7-small.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Wtc7-before.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no credible entity that questions the vericity of the bin laden tapes. WP:RS is well accepted guideline. Also, i think it's the world trade center section isn't the appropriate the place to report on the matter. --Sloane21:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.
A** (I mean) Sloane, you are too ready to jump on the "consensus" bandwagon. There are several here who do not think that sentence belongs. You are not winning me over to your side. --Demosfoni01:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the vandalism that passes as editing by the extreme right-wing faction that polices this page. The truth only exists for an instant and then it is replaced by nonsense. --Demosfoni04:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi...please tone down comments such as made here...[1]. Comments like that do nothing to help make an article better and are simply personal attacks.--MONGO05:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. PabloTalk | Contributions05:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I think the re-structuring of the article was a good way to solve the problem of singling out Bush in the original sections. Good job. Brusegadi (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)