| Revision as of 01:02, 10 April 2009 editCs32en (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,891 edits →911 conspiracy theories subject to discretionary sanctions: discussion moved← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:38, 10 April 2009 edit undoBlack Kite (talk | contribs)Administrators85,214 edits +blockNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| :I have moved this discussion to the article's . --] (]) 01:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC) | :I have moved this discussion to the article's . --] (]) 01:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| <div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''time'''|You have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:edit-warring|'''edit-warring'''|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:<b>]</b> 01:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)|<b>]</b> 01:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> | |||
Revision as of 01:38, 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)
Your contribution to the encyclopedia so far consists of 5 reverts in 4 hours. That's not the BRD-cycle. That's surprising for someone so familiar with our policies. Tom Harrison 00:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have reformulated, with a view to shorten, and to improve, a previous contribution that has been kicked out by another user. Let me just point out that the BRD-cycle, in order to work, implies that people start a discussion on new contributions, not simply delete them. If those users that deleted the contribution would follow the BRD-cycle, there would be no need to revert anything at this moment at all. I have also noticed that you seem to approve the BRD-cycle, so let's work out this issue along these lines. --Cs32en (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The first thing you need to do is follow the Three-revert rule. Remove your addition until a consensus supports adding it. Tom Harrison 00:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have moved this discussion to the article's talk page. --Cs32en (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 01:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)