User talk:Locewtus

Feel free to discuss my edits here . . . please be nice about it.

The three-revert rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported your actions. Levi P. 21:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. Locewtus 23:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting material

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Template:911tm. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sloane 19:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Jim Hoffman. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sloane 23:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to 9/11 Truth Movement, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Sloane 15:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, what a sad surprise to see the same sort of branding here as was observed by Locewtus over on the Jim Hoffman article. Just a hunch, but such branding (of the Wikiturfing kind) might well be considered a personal attack. Ombudsman 05:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hologram Theory?

Hi Loc,

You seem to be knowledgeable about alternative 9/11 theories . Maybe you could to add some content to these two new articles. Hologram Theory and Rosalee Grable. Cheers. - F.A.A.F.A 10:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F.Y.I.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (3rd). Best wishes, Travb (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I especially like the phrase "administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions." It sounds so official, as though the administrators are supreme beings, capable of no wrongs. And that's funny because I see them proved wrong fairly often. Locewtus (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of an admin being proved wrong at that reference (or that you were involved at the time). Someone finally found a reference which wasn't Alex or a press release. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block warning

You have been restoring contentious material about 9/11 to a variety of articles, without getting consensus on any Talk page that the material belongs. A variety of regular editors keep removing your change. You may take this as one of the signs that you don't have consensus. If you continue, you make be blocked for edit warring. A general discussion of this issue is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Problem with recurring sock puppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Abuse of multiple accounts. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

You've continued to insert a reference to 'active thermitic' material to Wikipedia articles after a final warning. As you must know, consensus to insert this material has not been obtained on any Talk page, and it has repeatedly been removed by regular editors. Per WP:MEAT, external forums should not be allowed to manipulate Wikipedia. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Problem with recurring sock puppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]