User talk:178.148.5.47

Welcome!
Hello, 178.148.5.47, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Don't revert closure of threads when I'm trying to avoid blocking you. Your editing is improper. Wikipedia is not the place to push conspiracy theories. Please go do that on some other website. Jehochman Talk 21:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * you can block. I will complain at appropriate place. Your closure is improper.. and in violation of Talk_page_guidelines  Keep your passive aggression for someone else..  178.148.5.47 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, please see the notice below. You will shortly get blocked by somebody else if you keep going with the conspiracy nonsense. Jehochman Talk 21:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * conspiracy nonsense is social phenomena, like it or not, and deserves appropriate discussion. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

September 11 conspiracy theories - general sanctions
Jehochman Talk 21:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears you have not read the decision.. as I don't see how it related to the given discussion and your closure. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

9/11 Discussion Close
I'm not going to play this game with you. Either go to Abcom or drop it. This discussion will not be re-opened otherwise. Period. --Tarage (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not playing any game.. You do what you must, I'll do what I must. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is your last warning. Revert again and you will most likely be blocked from editing. --Tarage (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * you are so frightening.. i am so scared. buhahahaha 178.148.5.47 (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * One would think that after numerous editors have told you that you are incorrect, including two administrators, you would understand this. Instead, you have decided to launch into personal attacks. You won't last long. --Tarage (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * New threats.. You are so civil, aren't you. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Not a threat at all. A direct reaction to your behavior. But please, do keep going. It is entertaining to watch. --Tarage (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * not only watch, i see you participate eagerly. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  02:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * I may respond equally with warning to you, could I not? 178.148.5.47 (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI about ANI
At the top of [{WP:ANI]], there is a section that reads "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." Callmemirella, having been here for over 2 years with over 9,000 edits under their belt certainly qualifies as an experienced editor.

Uninvolved editors are allowed, even encouraged in some cases, to make non controversial closes or to shut down disruptive threads. Blackmane (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears to me a closure is much bigger disruption than (to someone disruptive?) discussion. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear..


 * If there are few editors involved, there hardly can be any talk about consensus, which requires many more editors. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The talk page existed well before you started editing. If you check the archives, you will see this exact same argument has been rejected over and over again. The point of consensus is that in order to change things, you must prove that it should be changed. You must bring reliable sources. Considering how long the page has stood as it is, one editor bringing one or two sources that have been used numerous times in the past is not enough to change consensus. In short, it's like trying to cut down a tree with a dull steak knife. You aren't going to, and that's what numerous editors have told you up until this point. THAT is consensus. Consensus says you need to stop. --Tarage (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope, there is no such argument that statement is not supported by its source. In fact, another editor User:clpo13 agreed with this. Consensus is not few editors bullying one's opinion and attempt on discussion. That is not consensus, that is WP:OWNership. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Depends. If an editor views a thread as blatantly disruptive or is not likely to result in productive discussion, then they may boldly close the thread. The talk page discussion you initiated here was closed as it had already been discussed before and you were linked to multiple archived discussions. Your subsequent continuation of the closed discussion was disruptive. After posting to ANI twice, the view that your conduct was disruptive was upheld by an uninvolved administrator. Blackmane (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I see so many things as disruptive here and don't go around with warnings, closures, and other passive aggressive nonsense. Again, my objection was not replied to. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This IP issue has gone on for far too long. The consensus here and in multiple times in the past is against this IP's views. They have twice tried to open ANI's and have been rejected. There are multiple sites on the internet - and even one on Wikipedia - for these conspiracy theories and that is where they should stay. I would, reluctantly, support a ban on this IP; who does not want to accept the present and past consensus on this issue and is disruptive. David J Johnson (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not saying there are no sources to support statement in question, I am saying provided source does not support it. Given that it is a mainstream and majority view, I find it curious that you find it easier to block and silence me than to find appropriate source for the statement. Shame on you. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)