Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:26, 23 June 2006

Welcome!

Hello, TruthSeeker1234, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  +Hexagon1 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:NLT

It's a good time for you to read WP:NPA...you have a problem with the message, then address that...do not attack the messanger. No vandalism has been committed either. There is a distinct difference from what you think is vandalism and what is actually efforts to ensure unencyclopedic and unproven allegations and original research out of article space. Furhtermore, no one here is mandated to reveal their true names...and your comments about submitting this to an "independent arbitration service" indicate to me that you could possibly be threatening legal action...an indefinitely blockable offense. There is zero proof of controlled demolition...what part of that do you not understand? I have yet to see you provide one ounce of proof of anything. Lastly, this is the discussion page for this article...we don't need to clutter up article space with a bunch of fact tags...they are ugly and unnecessary.--MONGO 15:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I should point out that we have a three-revert rule that you may be violating. Tom Harrison 00:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

ST911 article

Hi TruthSeeker, Sorry to hear that you have given up on the collapse article, but I am interested in your proposed article on this for ST911. I'll be interested to read it (or lend any help, if you need) you might also be interested in the curious fact that Mongo works for Homeland Security . It highly likely that he is just an honest HS worker who likes to edit Misplaced Pages during lunch break, but it is a curious fact, given the US security services public declarations that they intend to 'control the new fronteers of cyberspace'. Seabhcán 10:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Published?

Where?...it'll be an interesting read...can you throw me a link if web based or let me know when I'll be in print?--MONGO 10:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know too. I really want to see this. SkeenaR 00:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquette

I don't think the Wikiquette page is usually used for dialogue, but I thought I should tell you that I have objected to your use of the edit summary to call my work vandalism. See Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#12 May 2006. Tom Harrison 18:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Last warning

See the definition of vandalism WP:VAN...if you refer to others edits as vandalism again and it doesn't conform with the definition, you will be blocked for disruption. WP:BLOCK, WP:CIVIL are areas you need to review.--MONGO 06:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

World Trade Center

Hi. May I ask that you kindly refractor your statement conerning alledged vandalism..? Such comments are unacceptable when a long-time contributor is acting in good faith. -Zero 18:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have filed a request for Arbitration about you and your behavior on Collapse of the World Trade Center.--DCAnderson 21:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Since you strongly dispute my case summary, and I am only involved in the case in my capacity as a clerk, I have withdrawn it. --Tony Sidaway 17:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Suspicions

I don't use sockpuppet accounts, and you are bordering on disrupton. I have requested that one more person that refers to editors there as being a vandal they be blocked from editing. Furthermore, ask Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser if you think I use a sock account. I recommend you read through WP:CIVIL before you make anymore gross mischaracterizations.--MONGO 19:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

I am sick and tired of your incivility and you have been warned repeatedly. I was making a comment and you're typical snide response was as shown here:. You have told people in threatening manner they are going to be "published", repeatedly referred to others content disputes as vandalism and no matter how many times you are told not to, you continue. Read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before you return to edit this website.--MONGO 19:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

falshback! --Striver 22:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mongo has started a review of this block. Seabhcán 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Article

Thanks for clarifying. Good luck with your work. Tom Harrison 23:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to 9/11 conspiracy theories, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. mboverload@ 05:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Misplaced Pages, as you did to 9/11 conspiracy theories. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. mboverload@ 05:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please cease pushing your point of view on our articles. Unless you can prove that it was yellow hot metal, it should say it could be. Please cease before you need to be blocked again. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. mboverload@ 06:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Take a look at this and , thanks.--Striver --Striver 10:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

I happened to come across the 9/11 Misplaced Pages pages. They are a disgrace to this place, they've got nothing to do with documenting the knowledge we have of the 9/11 events. I did notice that you are one of the few who at least portrays a desire to formulate a coherent, consistent and complete story, and that the amount and kind of opposition you get must be bewildering to any objective observer, not just me. In fact, I find it hard to believe that Misplaced Pages allows topics to be hijacked (no pun intended) like that: it looks like this is a case in which Misplaced Pages's philosophy and openness is abused and distorted in such a way, that the opposite effect is achieved. The only solution I can see, is to get more rational people involved in editing these pages, so as to at least statistically reduce the noise from subjective contributors. So, if you need help, let me know. ;-) Hppnq 06:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have indefinitely blocked you for malicious vandalism, through your EngineerEd sock puppet. Tom Harrison 01:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A Brilliant Expose

..on the level of attention that facts are being given in Misplaced Pages. Ed could have written a whole article. He was loved. SkeenaR 06:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed has now been flushed down the memory hole. I hope someone saved his barnstar. SkeenaR 06:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed is back. SkeenaR 06:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I used a sockpuppet, never again

I am sorry to have used a sockpuppet, but I had to in order to make my point. I created a character named EngineerEd who was an insulting, uncivil jerk, yet who supported the official story of 9/11. Never did any administrator warn Ed about being uncivil. Huysman even awarded Ed a Barnstar for "tireless work on refuting the conspiracy theories" or some such. Ed did get a note about "why we require citations", but then Ed went ahead and put the bit about the "Fuji Towers" into the article anyway, without a citation. Ed claimed the Fuji tower in Houston had collapsed similarly to the twin towers. This was completely fabricated, unsourced, and yet, because it supported the official 9/11 story, it was allowed to remain in the article for days, despite numerous edits taking place during that time.

Then, a few days later, using my correct name of TruthSeeker1234, I made an edit to the article in good faith, inserting a passage about the New York Times article, and the metalurgical report. Reputable, mainstream sources exist for the material in that passage, and I was about to add the citation when, POOF, 1/2 hour later, the passage had been deleted.

EngineerEd's bogus Fuji Towers claim was still in the article. A false claim with no documentation was left in the article because it supported the official story. I had made my point, it was time to confess, and confess i did. Here's the conversation that took place:

Interesting you think Ed deserves a barnstar Huysman. I think he's a fake. Not one citation, nothing. TruthSeeker1234 07:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly; time will tell if my barnstar was premature. However, the fact remains that 9/11 conspiracy theories are false. -- Huysman talk| contribs 15:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just because your findings and expertise are not in Truthseeker's favor. I say the barnstar was well earned. Keep up the good work! --Physicq 210 05:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Or, maybe it's because I am a sockpuppet, and I completely made up the stuff about the Fuji Towers. EngineerEd 00:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Facts with documentation are deleted immediately if they do not fit the official story, yet Ed's BS survived and got barnstars. Let us never forget - as soon as my point was made, I "turned meself in". I didn't have to do that. The birth and first several edits of EngineerEd were made while I was at a hotel in Cincinnati Ohio. Check Ed's first IP adresses and you'll see. I could have left them at that and never been discovered.

I object to the labeling of EngineerEd's edits as "malicious". They were not malicious. In Ed's mind, Ed actually believes he is doing the right thing. Ed would tell you he was editing in good faith. If inventing a false building collapse helps reassure people that steel building collapses are common events, then it has served a noble purpose. This is how Ed thinks.

As TruthSeeker1234, of course, I say Ed's tactics are rubbish. The article should be written NPOV, and using only reputable mainstream sources. It is the administrators willingness to allow deletion of facts about 9/11 collpases, when they don't support the official story, even if they are properly soucred, THIS is what drove me to document the bias as I did. I hope you all can understand, and I hope that the fact that I intentionally "gave myself up" will be a mitigating factor in considering lifting the block against me.

TruthSeeker1234 07:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)