User talk:Dr Realidad

October 2019
Please do not add or change content, as you did at American Airlines Flight 77, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, please do not insert conspiracy theories. Thank you.'' David J Johnson (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice
 Acroterion   (talk)   02:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you'll find that most of us are familiar with the arguments. After much futile debate, we agreed to leave controlled demolition entirely out of the article. It's not so much a question of what the "true" explanation of the collapses is, but what the received view in the engineering community is. We've simply decided to let the article be the clearest statement of what you call the "official" story we can make. Think of it as a summary of the explanation that informs current building codes, and curriculum design in engineering faculties. On the plus side, do note that the article doesn't say one negative word about people who promote controlled demolition. In any case, it's up to them to convince mainstream engineering to take them seriously. If that happens, the article would reflect the new situation.--Thomas B (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * For the second time, please stop using my personal Talk page to try and further your own theories on Collapse of the World Trade Center. You would do well to read and digest the comments above. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Original research, reliable sources, we're not a forum, and competence is required
Dr Realidad, I am afraid I have to tell you that if you continue on this path you will soon be blocked. It has been explained to you a few times now what Wikipedia is and what it isn't, how we decide which sources are reliable and which are not, and what can go in article space. Plus, there's a few editors now already who are tired of your bothering them with your theories--and we don't do theories here, that's original research. So, if you want to make neutral edits in article space based on reliable sources, go ahead, but do not continue doing what you've done before. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @Dr Realidad: Regarding this comment, you are a new user without experience of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you are blocked, any further accounts you create will be blocked quickly without discussion. Please understand that thousands of editors contribute at Wikipedia every week—do you think you are the first person who has had an idea about a controversial topic? Article content is based on reliable sources and we don't have time or inclination to debate alternative theories. The standard response is that such alternative theories will be regarded as fringe until they are covered in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a forum and repeatedly treating it as one will result in a block. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Guy (help!) 10:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)