Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TravisTX (talk | contribs) at 03:37, 10 April 2009 (→911 conspiracy theories subject to discretionary sanctions: +cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

Cs32en (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been temporarily blocked from editing for edit warring on this article. However, the paragraph in question was first added to the article by another user on April 4. The paragraph has been modified several times, and I also have modified the paragraph with the aim of improving it, and to respond to complaints with regard to its content. The addition of the paragraph has been reverted several times, without waiting for a consensus to emerge in the talk page. The last removal has been justified with the argument that the paragraph would be in the wrong section. I therefore moved the paragraph to a different section of the article. While I understand that people who just remove or revert things without attempting to find a compromise that takes into account the views of all sides, are subject to being blocked, I do not think that I have acted in this way. An allegation that my account would be a sock puppet account is also being made, although this is not given as a reason for the block. While my account on the English Misplaced Pages is new, I have been contributing to the German Misplaced Pages since July 1, 2006 . A small fraction of my contributions to Misplaced Pages were about the attacks on Sept. 11 (first contribution on March 8, 2009), and my contributions to the German article have helped to develop this article. (One has not been contested by anyone, another one has led to a constructive discussion and a modification of the respective paragraph.) I hope that the decision to block my account is being reviewed, and that my account is being unblocked, or a more specific justification for the blocking of my account is given. --Cs32en (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yes. Well you indeed were edit warring and did violate the three revert rule. I don't know, maybe that's acceptable at dewiki, but it certainly isn't here. —Travis 03:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For what it's worth, I don't think you're a sockpuppet. However, you're still edit warring, and may not be familiar with en.wikipedia guidelines. Please read carefully WP:BRD and WP:3RR to see what guidelines you are not following. If you will acknoledge your violation, and agree to discuss the matter on the talk page and obtain a change of consensus before making edits against the apparent consensus, I would have no objection to an unblock. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, extraordinary claims, i.e. WTC controlled demolition, require extraordinary evidence. The article you reference is anything but extraordinary. —Travis 03:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)