User talk:98.167.9.155

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions to Vanessa Beeley&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Burrobert (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 09:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please explain to me how my edits are considered "disruptive" Wikipedia defines disruptive as: "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia" How am I not improving an article that clearly has bias from the editor that I was correcting? As found under "SUMMARY" on the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing page:

"Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. That very openness, however, sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a platform for pushing a single point of view, original research, advocacy, or self-promotion."

I would suggest that using the term "conspiracy theorist" or "conspiracy theory" when not citing a source is "pushing a single point of view"

Science is NOT consensus, never has been. Science is debate on alternative hypotheses. If needed, I could list all of the many, many monumental failures of "mainstream science consensus" throughout history and how "conspiracy theorists throughout the ages were proven right" 98.167.9.155 (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC) --MONGO (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)