User talk:Jasne9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

April 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Binksternet. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Collapse of the World Trade Center seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet. Re: Collapse of the World Trade Center: Yes, as you'll see from my comments, my edits were to promote factual and neutral information -- the same thing you value. There was also a large amount of outdated information on this page. Unless you can show that the information posted is incorrect, please just leave the edits as are. It is factual information, backed up by the references I provide. Much of the information I removed was not sourced or was sourced incorrectly. Please let's try to keep Wikipedia factual and neutral. Thanks. jasne9.

Re: Collapse of the World Trade Center

Apr 16: Corrections made: I will do these piece by piece so potential editors can verify for accuracy. Removed: "In both cases, the portion of the building that had been damaged by the airplanes failed, which allowed the section above the airplane impacts to fall onto the undamaged structure below." Unsourced and incorrect. In the case of WTC 1, perimeter failure initiated on the south face, according to NIST. Edited the rest for clarity, factuality and neutrality. Updated citation. --Jasne9 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Apr 16: Redid revision undone by Capitalismojo. --Jasne9 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--MONGO 11:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Totally support comments from MONGO above. Too much detail is being changed without consultation on Talk page. David J Johnson (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


Actually, I explained where my notes are. None of you have replied to any of my points. I question how much consensus building can occur with people who clearly don't seem to understand the material and who won't bother to do the research. The article Talk page already acknowledges this is a topic for which much is in dispute. If you haven't read the NIST reports yourself, or done the research, you should step aside. There is much more to be changed in this article. And it will be changed. So start co-operating. --Jasne9 (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

New section started for this on article talk notes. While I can understand the wariness of a new over-eager editor, some process needs to be followed so that intelligent, accurate revisions can be made and sources updated for this article. Jasne9 (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)