199.172.228.206 (talk) |
reply |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:this is a school IP and im only responsible for the latest block, so lets focus on this block, secondly like i said the reason i changed and neither of you two did after that, thirdly everyone cherry picks here is a wiki article about the 9/11 commission(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#Claims_of_bias_within_the_commission) it says that the commission ignored some info while chosing to use others, also in the 9/11 page which no one is allowed to edit, why doesnt it mention Bush's reluctance to being interview, and not allowing recordings of any kind? how about all the criticism about those who dont believe that thats the way it happened? this is th only thing i find on the wiki 9/11 that mentions anything else other than the official story "Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of, planned, or carried out the attacks.[114] These theories are not accepted as credible by mainstream journalists, scientists, or political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.[115][116]" but if you look at this poll(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/279827_conspiracy02ww.html), 36% of people said that the government knew 9/11 would happen, i seriously doubt the fairness of that article, also remember that i explained why i posted, your two are the ones that fell silent after that |
:this is a school IP and im only responsible for the latest block, so lets focus on this block, secondly like i said the reason i changed and neither of you two did after that, thirdly everyone cherry picks here is a wiki article about the 9/11 commission(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#Claims_of_bias_within_the_commission) it says that the commission ignored some info while chosing to use others, also in the 9/11 page which no one is allowed to edit, why doesnt it mention Bush's reluctance to being interview, and not allowing recordings of any kind? how about all the criticism about those who dont believe that thats the way it happened? this is th only thing i find on the wiki 9/11 that mentions anything else other than the official story "Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of, planned, or carried out the attacks.[114] These theories are not accepted as credible by mainstream journalists, scientists, or political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.[115][116]" but if you look at this poll(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/279827_conspiracy02ww.html), 36% of people said that the government knew 9/11 would happen, i seriously doubt the fairness of that article, also remember that i explained why i posted, your two are the ones that fell silent after that |
||
::People lie, does this mean we need to add a general truth every time any person is criticized for lying on Wikipedia? Of course not. We list notable criticism in the article, the fact other people/organizations cherry pick does not in any way excuse Loose Change's selective evidence. What the hell does Bush recording, and a 36% have to do with the Loose Change article? Are you attempting to argue that Loose Change is true? You seem to be unaware that is entirely irrelevant to how your additions were not appropriate for the article. If the commission cherry picks, fine put it in an article about the commission. This kind of generic defense could be used for anything, and if we allowed it in our articles they would quickly descend into bickering anarchy; with points, counter points and counter-counter points. |
|||
::You were warned repeatedly not to re-add your argumentative and off-topic paragraph, you added it anyway. Thinking you're right does not entitle you to ignore others; who have spent more time on this article and are far more familiar with Wikipedia policies. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>[[User:RoyBoy/The 800 Club|800]]</sup> 14:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:24, 14 June 2007
Regarding the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: this is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Cryptic (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Oral sex, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Catamorphism 22:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Propose changes on the talk page, do not force them; especially with the rationale that we somehow have to keep a poorly written unreferenced "response" paragraph (shoved into the criticism section) that has little to do with Loose Change; to keep a paragraph that does belong there. - RoyBoy 800 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please refrain from adding irrelevant (to the film article) unreferenced information to Loose Change. - RoyBoy 800 20:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gdo01 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. - RoyBoy 800 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
i dont understand what is wrong with the paragraph i wrote, especially when you consider the paragraph that proceeded it, and while Gdo01 did say it was because mine was unreferenced i explained in the very next edit that all info on my paragraph could be found in the loose change movie which is what i was editing, after that Gdo01 and Roy Boy, (yes the admin that banned me and is probably in charge of unbanning me) made edits and gave no explanation as to why, so i cant understand why im the one being blocked, save speculations of ill thoughts based on RoyBoy's neutrality towards this article
- There's a difference between quoting directly from the film and trying to interpret what the film makers intending its purpose to be. You are obviously doing the latter. Additionally, you were on your final warning after several warnings. You would have been blocked by another admin soon after. Gdo01 21:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- this is a school IP and im only responsible for the latest block, so lets focus on this block, secondly like i said the reason i changed and neither of you two did after that, thirdly everyone cherry picks here is a wiki article about the 9/11 commission(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#Claims_of_bias_within_the_commission) it says that the commission ignored some info while chosing to use others, also in the 9/11 page which no one is allowed to edit, why doesnt it mention Bush's reluctance to being interview, and not allowing recordings of any kind? how about all the criticism about those who dont believe that thats the way it happened? this is th only thing i find on the wiki 9/11 that mentions anything else other than the official story "Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of, planned, or carried out the attacks.[114] These theories are not accepted as credible by mainstream journalists, scientists, or political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.[115][116]" but if you look at this poll(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/279827_conspiracy02ww.html), 36% of people said that the government knew 9/11 would happen, i seriously doubt the fairness of that article, also remember that i explained why i posted, your two are the ones that fell silent after that
- People lie, does this mean we need to add a general truth every time any person is criticized for lying on Wikipedia? Of course not. We list notable criticism in the article, the fact other people/organizations cherry pick does not in any way excuse Loose Change's selective evidence. What the hell does Bush recording, and a 36% have to do with the Loose Change article? Are you attempting to argue that Loose Change is true? You seem to be unaware that is entirely irrelevant to how your additions were not appropriate for the article. If the commission cherry picks, fine put it in an article about the commission. This kind of generic defense could be used for anything, and if we allowed it in our articles they would quickly descend into bickering anarchy; with points, counter points and counter-counter points.