User talk:Mark19651965
June 2021
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
PushaWasha (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Teahouse. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Green Giant (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Green Giant (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. bonadea contributions talk 07:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Again: When your edits are contested, you should start by presenting your argument at the article talk page, Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and not restore your edits repeatedly. If you should get a consensus in favour of your changes, you can carry them out, but not until that happens. You have now violated the three reverts policy, which was explained to you above. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Mark19651965! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing!
Important Notice
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the September 11 attacks. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
GirthSummit (blether) 10:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I noticed that you have expressed an interest in this topic area, but that nobody had advised you about the discretionary sanctions regime that is in effect, so I'm doing that now. Please be sure to follow the relevant policies and guidelines, and if in doubt, ask questions. Best GirthSummit (blether) 10:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
That you do not include this information is an abdication of your stewardship duties: University Report on 9/11 Building Collapse Contradicts Official Conclusions https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/university-report-on-911-building-collapse-contradicts-official-conclusions-301029854.html
That you persist in rhetorical smears is just as reprehensible.
June 2021
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)- Suggest you read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and the See also list. If you have any desire to return as a Wikipedia editor, submit an unblock request. State that you will no longer attempt to edit the A&E article, and that if you find yourself in a dispute over article content, will start a discussion on the relevant Talk page(s) rather than edit war. If this is a bridge too far, don't appeal the block. David notMD (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)