Misplaced Pages

User talk:Perscurator

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Acroterion (talk | contribs) at 17:14, 2 June 2008 (→3RR: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:14, 2 June 2008 by Acroterion (talk | contribs) (→3RR: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, Perscurator, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I noticed you changed a comment made by another user. In general, one should not do this, and when one does so anyway, e.g. improving layout, it may be a good idea to mention this in the edit summary.

Thanks for your remarks, I like them.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Vesku

Just to make sure you know, you are not allowed to make use of more than one user account at any one time. It is considered sockpuppetry, a concept similar to shilling, and can result in a ban if the behavior persists. This isn't a threat, just a notification: I would recommend if you are changing from Vesku to Perscurator that you cease all use of the Vesku account immediately to avoid violation of this policy. Welcome to the Project and hope this helps. ~ S0CO 00:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

request your input in a consensus survey re 9/11

Dear Perscurator,

At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:

"The current form of the 9/11 article is at odds with the WP:NPOV policy, and the proposed inclusion of the fact that Michael Meacher alleges the US government of willfully not preventing the attacks, would make the article better, in stead of worse.

I would appreciate it when you could take a look.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WTC7 3RR

Just letting you know you could be blocked under the 3RR rule for your continual reversion of ] If you are unhappy with the article at present please bring it up on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdynas (talk • contribs) 03:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Continual reversion"? Actually, the sentence in question was originally entered by myself quite a while ago, and it was allowed to stay. Then someone suddenly removed it without discussion. Perscurator (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Continual reversion". Meaning; constant, repetitive, incessant etc. & reversion meaning; "A return to a former condition, belief, or interest.". Just reading your reply, I'm guessing you quoted this because you don’t understand the definitions? Well now you do. You cannot deny you reverted a sentence two times in a row in under 24hrs (see history page). Regardless if you are the initial creator of that sentence or not - it doesn’t give you special powers. I am merely suggesting, read the talk page. As you can see, the sentence has been brought up numerous times and decided it should go.Cdynas (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, what I meant by "it was allowed to stay" was that the sentence, after my original reversal, stayed in the article for weeks before someone removed it under the highly misleading description "spelling correction". Based on the Talk page (including the archived pages), there clearly is no consensus that the large number of credible architects, engineers, physicists and even demolition experts questioning or rejecting NIST's theories should not be mentioned. Please see my entry on the article's current Talk page and continue the discussion there as needed. Perscurator (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Another warning - you've reached 3RR on the Bentham subject. Please attempt to reach consensus on the talk page. Also, please refrain from posting polemics and your own analysis on the talk page: talk pages are for discussion of the article, not a soapbox for your own personal views. Acroterion (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)