User talk:71.188.115.27

Ian.thomson (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 112.17.236.73 (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 2 weeks for disruptive editing, specifically by making it clear your purpose here is to promote fringe conspiracy theories. Also, recognize that if you were an account, or if you were on a static IP, this block would be permanent. If you return from this block on this or another IP to continue the same behavior, you will simply be blocked again. You may appeal this block by adding the text, to this page. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You were told repeatedly and in detail that that you are not welcome to push conspiracy theories here, nor try to present them as some kind of alternative facts. You were told that if you return from the previous block, you would be blocked again.
 * To be clear: You, as a person, are not welcome on Wikipedia. We do not want your contributions, we do not care about your complaints, you are a persona non grata.  If you cannot understand why, that is your problem.  Stay off this site.  Ian.thomson (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it possible for Wikipedia to describe the situation accurately without "promoting the theory." There was no reason to remove my last edit. The claim has not been properly sourced. If it is true, why not just provide a source?


 * Wow, do you ever stop lying or are you just totally disconnected from reality? The article is adequately sourced, you just refuse to accept the authority of any organization that doesn't push your your favorite conspiracy theory. Per Blocking_policy, any edit you make that is not related to appealing your block can be reverted. If you don't think or can't understand that the controlled demolition conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory, then you are of no use to us. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"Isn't it possible for Wikipedia to describe the situation accurately without "promoting the theory." There was no reason to remove my last edit. The claim has not been properly sourced. If it is true, why not just provide a source?"


 * There is the problem. None of the sources that claim conspiracy theories to be true, or cover them are reliable factchecking sources supported by mainstream academia. Therefore it does not get the same coverage that content supported by mainstream, fact-checking sources. To do so would violate WP:UNDUE, as well as WP:FRINGE. Now, you're dangerously close to losing the right to edit your talk page by even having the audacity to pretend that this block is not related whatsoever to your previous behavior. You completely replicated the same exact behavior that led to your original block, and you dare to accuse Ian.Thomson of abusing his administrative privileges. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox, a place to grind your ax, nor a place to peddle your conspiracy theories. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 07:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a claim that has not been properly sourced - that there is a consensus in the engineering community on the collapse of the WTC. If this claim is true, there should be a source for it. That is what I have been arguing this whole time. I am not saying Wikipedia should promote the CD theory.

You are using circular reasoning in a sense. The article fails to mention some of the more prominent scientific supporters of CD theory. The stated reason is to avoid giving undue weight to a so-called fringe theory. In view of the reality of the well credentialed proponents of this theory, it becomes a bit less of a fringe theory, tho admittedly not mainstream. Wikipedia could document the fact that prominent scientists Lyyn Marguliss, Daniel Orr, (people important enough to have their one wiki pages)support CD theory without being guilty of supporting a fringe theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk • contribs)
 * I've removed your talk page because you're just going to use it as a soapbox to preach the controlled demolition conspiracy theory from by speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Except you keep forgetting that there are no prominent scientific supporters of the controlled destruction theory. Just loonies who have their tin-foil hats on way too tight. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 11:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at HIV/AIDS denialism. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Tendentious behavior on talk page, following warnings on previous articles. MrBill3 (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I don't see what was disruptive about my edit. I am trying to figure out where the article references scientific research