Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cs32en (talk | contribs) at 18:52, 10 April 2009 (Included section headings and TOC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You can also leave messages for me here.

Temporary blocking of this account on April 10, 2009

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

(This chapter heading was added by Tom Harrison. --Cs32en (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

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.

Discussion on the temporary blocking of this account

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)

(Sorry, the first paragraph of this post seems to have disappeared as I was editing the page at the same time as another user. I'm trying to reconstruct the content.)

On the German Misplaced Pages, it is common that a text is being changed while being discussed on the talk page at the same time. Of course, it is expected that users take into account other views and suggestions. In this case, two main objections were brought forward:

• Unreliable sources: The sources that the user who first added the paragraph were not relevant enough to justify the inclusion of the paragraph in Misplaced Pages. I deleted those sources and referred to the four major Danish newspapers (circulation about 8-10% of the population of Danmark). (Reliability is not the issue, as nobody has disputed that the article exists.)

• Wrong chapter: Because some users considered the inclusion of the article in the chapter "Reaction of the engineering community" misplaced, I moved the article to the chapter "History", which appears to be the place where all topics that do no fit into the specialized chapters go to. As chemists and physicists are considered engineers in Germany, I tend to see this issue differently, but the interpretation of these terms in English speaking countries is the relevant issue here.

So, in my view, I have tried to contribute to Misplaced Pages in a constructive way. I may have reacted too strongly to the actions of users that simply removed the paragraph without seeking to take the view of others into account, and it probably would have been better to use appropriate ways to complain about these actions.

My actions may have contributed to an atmosphere where there were - in my view - widespread activities that, while maybe not formally constituting an edit war, were destructive to the purpose of Misplaced Pages to provide a place where people enjoy in expanding the scope and accessibility of collective knowledge. I would be prepared to accept that some of my actions, seen in isolation, can be interpreted as elements of an edit war. At the same time, I hope that all users - independent of their view of the subject of the article - will be judged by the same standard. --Cs32en (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of the article by Niels Harrit et al., and of the reports about it

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)

In the context of the article, I don't claim that WTC has collapsed due to controlled demolishing. The article is not about a controlled demolition of the WTC, but about the allegations that this was the case. Nobody doubts that such allegations exist, so this - rather than being an "extraordinary claim" - is an accepted fact. The publication is an important aspect of these allegations, i.e. of the topic of the article, as evidenced by the fact that it is considered an important development both by people who support the allegation and by the public at large. (See the articles in the major Danish newspapers, and the internet site of Videnskap, a science journal sponsored by the Danish Ministry of Science and Technology, where this is currently one of the major news items for the month of April. --Cs32en (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)) The publication has received more public attention than many other publications or facts that are mentioned in the article. --Cs32en (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider non-peer-reviewed publication by non-expert* (by "expert", I mean people whose non-reviewed pronouncements are considered reliable under WP:RS) scientists writing outside of of their fields notable, even if the Danish and/or Croatian press do/es. However, others may differ. Still, the en.Misplaced Pages essay is WP:BRD; if a bold revision is reverted, there should be discussion and, if possible, consensus, before it's reinserted. Now, Videnskap may be notable, and representative, at least, of the scientific community. Why no German papers or scientific publications picked up a publication originally in German may be a point against it....perhaps there a subtle language variation that indicates to native German speakers that the paper is a joke?

If you hadn't been blocked, we could have been having this discussion on the article talk page, where it belongs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as my block is temporary, the damage is limited. I have also noticed that you have been approaching the issue of blocking my account with a somewhat more open mind. So, with everything I knew from contributing to the German Misplaced Pages, I considered your first message to be hoax. (It turned out not to be.) I also would have understood better what Tom meant to say if he had written "The article on 9/11 conspiracy theories is subject to a policy enabling administrators to apply discretionary sanctions".

The journal says that it only accepts papers after a peer review, and the editor-in-chief, Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni, is a highly respected French researcher. I do not think we should start from the assumption that someone like her would put her reputation in jeopardy by allowing a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed to publish articles that have not been reviewed. (Whoever would make such an extraordinary claim would have to present some extraordinary evidence for it.)

Videnskab still features the article, and they would not do so if they had concluded that the research itself would be bogus. I assume that Videnskab must have been contacted by a number of people who object to the article, so this seems to be a conscious decision on their part. That some news are reported in one country and not in another country is often due to the fact that a press agency in one country has distributed the news, while no agency has reported in another country. This often happens with other news, too.

I don't think that German newspapers have seen the reports and would have actively decided not to publish it. I'm not a linguist, but I haven't seen anything that would make a german news reporter believe that the paper would be bogus. A German newspaper would have seen English reports about this first, in any case. Maybe they have received some e-mails from interested individuals (in English or German), but such correspondence is rarely taken seriously, irrespective of its topic or its content. I have written press releases, and relevant parts of these releases were carried by national and international news agencies, such as AP, so I have some idea how this works. --Cs32en (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you have been caught in the crossfire of an old and difficult dispute on the English Misplaced Pages. If anything notable or reliable were published about 9/11, it would immediately be reported by the entire American press. What seems to have happened, perhaps, is that a very tenacious group of Truthers have fooled a small number of foreign academics or journalists who are not vigilant enough. Jehochman 18:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)