User talk:Mik-kiss

Fringe promotion
Please note that Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION of WP:FRINGE theories. Articles should also avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE (i.e. a "mainstream conspiracy" vs other conspiracy thories). While it's acceptable to wikilink to articles inline where relevant (such as these: 9/11 Truth movement and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth), external links to such should only exist as the official site on their specific article. They are not reliable sources (WP:RS) for Wikipedia. If you would like to assess if a source is usable, that can be done at WP:RSN (and searching its archives). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 03:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I will definitely consider the points mentioned here. But what to do to correct untrue information that is wrongly referenced from an article. I think that at least mistakes of this kind must be corrected i.e. the source must be fererred as it is in the source itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 03:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're free to believe such positions, however, Wikipedia is meant to be a work of scholarship that relies on reliable sources. For such information to be added, it would have to come from the mainstream scientific communities first. In other words, the scientists would have to be won over first. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I came here to say the same thing Harizotoh9 did. We use reliable sources, not fringe. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And one other quick note -- there is already a link in the article to our page on the conspiracies (see the cultural influence section). Antandrus (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

To Antandrus: there is not any link to the truth movement. SO that must be allowed there to maintain credibility and allowing any scientific critique like critique from 3000 scientific architects and engineers. At the moment there are "references" from Tv-shows allowed so wiki can not deny credible critique of the official 911-account either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on User talk:MONGO were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Please also be sure to sign any "contribution" you may make to a Talk page. David J Johnson (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your advise. BR Mik-kiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

edit war
You appear to be edit warring over a number of pages, please read wp:editwar and stop.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring and exceeding the 3 revert limit
Rather than a template, I'm leaving a more personal note. Wikipedia has a policy against edit-warring and excessive reverts on a page - it's at WP:3RR. Right now, you're at that 3 revert limit and will very probably end up blocked from editing if you continue to revert. You MUST discuss the issue on the article talk page and see if you can get consensus with the other editors before trying to make further changes. Continuing to push your version can be viewed as edit-warring, even if you don't revert more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, and can also lead to being blocked. There's a page on dispute resolution on Wikipedia that you may find some helpful resources.

In general, I agree with the reasons others have reverted you thus far. It's a self-serving link and the phrasing is contrary to WP:FRINGE. Right on wrong, the consensus for mainstream sources is contrary to the ideas of the AE911 group and articles on Wikipedia must be written with that in mind. Besides the FRINGE page, the WP:NPOV page may be helpful to you.

Please don't revert again, trying to force in your link. You will end up blocked from editing. Discuss the issue on the talk page and use the dispute resolution steps, but realize that if consensus is against you, you need to respect that.  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven and Ravensfire. Thank you for your advice. I now will be less eager to put information straight to the wiki-pages and be more in the talk-page. Hopefully wiki does not promote censorship and is willing to give information that is relevant to that/any specific page theme. I am a bit suprised that warranted critique is not allowed in these pages because in scientific sphere it is critique that is a must to make any theory either stronger or forse it to be changed - little or completely in some cases. Thank you again for your words. Mik-kiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 17:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Test edits
We are not a lab for the purposes of carrying out sociological experiments, nor are articles a place to make test edits, that is what the sandbox is for.Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources
I recommend WP:IRS which is a good guide on evaluating if a source is reliable for Wikipedia (WP:RS). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 02:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I red throug the IRS-information
 * "Proper sourcing always depends on context"
 * "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources"
 * "a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation"
 * In the source video(s) William Rodriguez himself talks live about what he himself has wittnessed and experenced. That the most relable source referencing about what William Rodriguez has said/is saying.
 * So lets get William back to the Wiki-page about him self or explain to me what more evidence is needed to state that William experienced explosions and is not satisfied that his testimony has been rejected in the States, but not elsewhere (in Spain).
 * Mik-kiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 02:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You'll have to obtain consensus for that on that article's talk page. It's not an article I'm very familiar with, but the youtube video is a primary and self-published source (and has been discussed there before); if you can find a secondary source writing about it, this would likely help for inclusion.  To sign posts, please use four tildes ( ~ ), that will include the signature as well as a timestamp.  Messages can also be indented by using colons  as sentence prefix for threading.  I hope this helps, — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Alert
Also, continuing to promote conspiracy or fringe theories about 9/11 will likely lead to a topic ban or a block Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
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!) 22:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)