| Revision as of 23:45, 9 April 2009 editTom harrison (talk | contribs)Administrators47,534 edits →911 conspiracy theories subject to discretionary sanctions: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:13, 10 April 2009 edit undoCs32en (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,891 edits →911 conspiracy theories subject to discretionary sanctions: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| Please follow our core policies on ], ], and ]. Note in particular the ] listed here could result in a topic ban. Specificaly, stop trying to force in your version against consensus. The burden is on the person who wannts to add the material to justify it. You haven't met that burden. When you have, you won't have to keep reverting. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | Please follow our core policies on ], ], and ]. Note in particular the ] listed here could result in a topic ban. Specificaly, stop trying to force in your version against consensus. The burden is on the person who wannts to add the material to justify it. You haven't met that burden. When you have, you won't have to keep reverting. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Tom, please have look at . It's obvious that the content in question is verifiable, although people might differ on whether the conclusions of the paper are correct. Also, mentioning the article does not fall under the category of original research, as (a) the research was neither done nor published by me (b) the article is about theories on the WTC destruction, so the article itself is a subject of the article, not a piece of research with regard to the topic of the article. --] (]) 00:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:13, 10 April 2009
Please leave any messages for me here.
I don't think this will translate, and the notification needs to be here for tracability.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
911 conspiracy theories subject to discretionary sanctions
Please follow our core policies on Verifiability, Consensus, and No original research. Note in particular the discretionary sanctions listed here could result in a topic ban. Specificaly, stop trying to force in your version against consensus. The burden is on the person who wannts to add the material to justify it. You haven't met that burden. When you have, you won't have to keep reverting. Tom Harrison 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Tom, please have look at BRD-cycle. It's obvious that the content in question is verifiable, although people might differ on whether the conclusions of the paper are correct. Also, mentioning the article does not fall under the category of original research, as (a) the research was neither done nor published by me (b) the article is about theories on the WTC destruction, so the article itself is a subject of the article, not a piece of research with regard to the topic of the article. --Cs32en (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)