User talk:Louisstar

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

August 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Genesis creation narrative. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

911 article
I see you are involved in a dispute at the 911 article. Just would like to inform you that you will not make any progress on the matter. The topic has come up again and again about the unbalance of the article (in that no proper mention of the so called "Alternative Theories" is there). This is the main reason the article was demoted from GA status .. see Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2. I am not a believer in anyway of "Alternative Theories" but can face the fact its had a very big cultural impact. You will find those that watch over the article are simply scared of confronting the topic  in the article. Even CNN poked fun at the article over this.Moxy (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note. I won't waste too much time on it, but I really didn't think I was requesting anything too bizarre.--Louisstar (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree not asking much - you will find that many article here have WP:own problems of this nature.Moxy (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I came here to say the same thing. I was literally told, believe it or not: "Wikipedia doesn't care about the truth; it only cares about reflecting the mainstream perspective." I made arguments, using credible sources and making key points, and yet I was threatened with being banned from that discussion page if I ever posted there again. Thanks to my efforts though, they did eventually include a brief paragraph mentioning that there even are alternative theories (‘conspiracy theories’ (which they keep on a separate page.) This paragraph was watered down a lot from what I’d originally proposed and I see now that even this has since been replaced with an even more watered down version, which only mentions the other theories in a single line. The ones managing this 9/11 article are strictly against anything which questions the official story, period. Neurolanis (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that they manipulate. Normally, marginal ideas are banned according to WP standards:marginal conspiracy. However, in some cases like international conflict or here the "official account" believers are not in overwhelming majority. Actually, Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories say that they are in minority: "46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government". So, they cannot silence the voice saying that you are marginal and phenomenon is not "cultural". They therefore use harassment: distort your words, label you as conspiracy therrorist and etc. Sometimes they openly say that Wikipedia works as positive feedback (something published becomes truth), therefore only kosher, Nazi-approved, theories are allowed to be published in WP, no matter how popular the alternatives are. You will not be able to penetrate the wall. Actually, you have no support there not because you are alone with your opinion but because others have been intimidated and threatened already. One mechanism of manipulation is to keep the ground clean of dissident voice. Harassment helps a lot here. Also, I wonder how WP:own works only in one direction. Why we hear only imperialistic account (US elites and Israelis, who manage to suppress the Palestinian voice). I understand why US imperialism dominates the international media. However, it is shocking how blatantly the self-censorship outperforms the CNN imbalance here, at the key heights of the free Internet. --Javalenok (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Benjamin Earl (March 10)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Benjamin Earl and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Louisstar Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Louisstar reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Metro Bowl has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. TheMesquito buzz  05:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, to add to this, you should always assume good faith, even if it does not look very good. Saying something like "That looks like dog vomit, please don't do it again" could be construed as a personal attack, although i assumed you just used a bit stronger words then you wanted to. Thanks, TheMesquito  buzz  05:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)assumeed
 * Wasn't meant to be a personal attack at all. I just couldn't believe there was so much junk in an intro. It looked like someone just dropped their personal notes about the metro bowl into the intro. Anyhow, thanks for the reminder, it was more of a 'jokey' comment. But you know, we're not allowed to make jokes on Wikipedia, because it's not real life here. --Louisstar (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Benjamin Earl has been accepted
 Benjamin Earl, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  Flat Out  let's discuss it  11:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Louisstar help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)