User talk:67.164.76.73

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (67.164.76.73) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Yilloslime (t) 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Content policies, consensus building, and editing restriction

Wikipedia is a collaboratively built encyclopedia. As such, it is important for you to work with other editors on articles. To do this effectively, you need to use the article talk page to reach consensus as to how to fashion an encyclopedia article that does not contain original research, is verifiable, and is written from a neutral point of view. All of these are core content policies that all articles and editors need to follow.

You have been repeatedly editing some contentious topics without using the talk pages. This is problematic; you can't reach agreement with other editors without talking with them.

You were formerly warned about this with respect to articles related to 9/11, which are subject to a special restriction due to a long history of problematic editing by many editors. Despite that warning, which you saw, you have continued repeating edits without using the talk page to reach consensus, on both Template:911tm and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. Accordingly, you are being placed on a reversion restriction. For the next three months, you are placed on a restriction of 1 revert per page per fortnight (1 revert every two weeks), and required to engage in talk page discussion every time you revert. An edit is a revert if it restores the article to a state it was previously in. (The history tab lets you see prior versions.) Excluded from this limitation is reversion to eliminate obvious vandalism, such as when someone adds bathroom stall graffiti type content to an article. GRBerry 13:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to overturn your content block

Although I feel your 9/11 views have absolutely no merit, I am deeply troubled by editors deleting suppressing popular alternative views which they disagree with.

Here are some suggestions:

Is the admin who blocked you an uninvolved editor? Go through the admin's edits?

See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and_motions#Raul654_is_NOT_an .22uninvolved.22_administrator

Did the banning admin follow the guidelines? Probably not.

See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications and_motions#Raul654.27s_did_not follow_the_arbcom_guidelines

Whatever you do, don't use a sock. Inclusionist (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated. The increasingly byzantine efforts to suppress alternative views may signal the realization of the gradual breaking of the blockade as more and more question the official version of events. It's not worth my time to fight the editorial fight on here that's already rigged in favor of "not letting the lunatic fringe use wikipedia as their soapbox." It will be strange to look back on this all someday -- already the first ever article in a mainstream civil engineering journal has published the questioning of the official reports and conclusions. Of course, it's been scrubbed from the demolitions page already . . . so you wouldn't know it even happened. 67.164.76.73 (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)