User talk:Mannydantyla

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gary Thomas Row has been accepted

Gary Thomas Row, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LaMona (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

--MONGO 07:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response by MannyDantyla to Notice by MONGO

Please take the time to look at the sources I used to cite the text that I added and you removed from the page. They are historical facts, not to be debated.

I understand that there is a problem with people defacing these article. A quick look at the history proves this. All I ask is that you make sure that you are able to separate the garbage from good information. I have not defaced the article. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I urge you to think critically for a moment; we must be vigilant and adhere to the truth.

I will be adding this content back into the article. What you do from there is up to you.

--Mannydantyla (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Your alterations to Collapse of the World Trade Center have been reverted by three different editors.--MONGO 16:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning on engaging topic-banned editors in the area for which they've been sanctioned

Dornicke is indefinitely topic-banned with respect to 9/11-related topics due to long-term disruption. It is not appropriate or fair to topic-banned editors to attempt to engage them on a subject within that ban, as it may lead them to breach the ban. Please do not try to draw out Dornicke on this topic. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to the rules that state that simply typing 'I agree' into a Talk Page (with no warning or indicator not to) is a no no... buncha up-tight assholes

-Danny

Common courtesy dictates that you not bait an editor who has abided by their restriction into violating their topic ban: they may not respond to you in any meaningful way without doing so. It's quite apparent how you got there and from where, and it's directly under a discussion of their block for disruption at Talk:September 11 attacks. Please reconsider your approach to interactions with other editors in general. Acroterion (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, are talk pages not for talking? It seems like I've gotten nothing but resistance from everybody here. You were new to the wikipedia community once, weren't you??

Allow me to share the quote from the Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers page:

"Remember, our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold. We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value."

Or this one from the Wikipedia:Avoiding_talk-page_disruption page:

"The appearance of cavalier rejection without explanation is inflammatory and may result in a hostile encounter on Talk pages that is hard to correct."

Can I get a little slack here??

Mannydantyla (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpages are part of most topic bans including that one.

You are approaching a topic that has been the target of conspiracy enthusiasts (a broad category that erroneously views Wikipedia as a place to promote views ranging from anti-vaccination to worldwide Jewish conspiracies to water-powered cars to moon landing hoaxes to sovereign citizen legal theory to Barack Obama's birthplace to ...) who have promoted views ranging from a mild "not everything is known that should be about how this came to pass" to "WTC was nuked!" (seriously, that's one idea that's been pushed). As with many topics of this kind - vaccination, the Holocaust, Bosnian pyramids, GamerGate - the arguments have been hashed through so many times that nothing's new and experienced editors get a little tired of having to explain it all over again for the 468th time in the past decade. We try to write FAQs where we can, but that has mixed success. As a general rule editors are extremely skeptical of propositions to advance fringe theories or to give disproportionate weight or credibility to them where they are discussed. This is an encyclopedia project, it exists to document generally accepted views. Edits that seek to present as fact topics that are regarded by academic literature and mainstream journalism as fringe speculation are regarded with deep suspicion across the project. It doesn't help that this time of year there's always an uptick in new editors who believe they're going to reveal The Truth about 9/11 for once and for all.

You've picked a topic where very little slack is granted. It's a lot worse in other parts of Wikipedia: see topics related to The Troubles, anything to do with Israel or Palestine, or Indian castes. A little time spent there makes popular conspiracy topics seem like a walk in the park. Acroterion (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the well thought out response, I really do. Thank you! Feels good to be treated with a little respect. --Mannydantyla (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I believe that Al-Qaeda is responsible for 9/11. But there were many inadequacies with the NIST report on the collapses - I care because I want buildings to be safe in the future. I just want everyone to understand that. Again.. NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORIST. Thank you! --Mannydantyla (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I phrased it as "you are approaching a topic that has been the target of conspiracy enthusiasts" rather than asserting that you are a CT enthusiast.

I'm an architect. I spend much of my day ensuring that buildings are, to the best of my ability, safe. The lay public doesn't always understand the level of regulation and care that goes into the design and construction of large buildings - I have a shelf full of code books that I have to know in detail, which vary from place to place.

One critical thing to understand about construction is that steel behaves badly in fire situations. Unprotected steel is particularly bad. Once it gets moderately hot it loses much of its structural capacity, long before it can be considered plastic or anywhere near "molten," and it expands when heated, a lot. Wood is, in fact, better than steel in a fire, since although it acts as fuel, in bulk it retains its structural capacity far longer and is not subject to deformation by heat-induced expansion - this is reflected in mill construction where large timbers are granted greater credit than steel. Steel has to be protected by fireproofing material. Once it's knocked off, say by a 500 mph impact, it will fail as soon as it heats, expands and either deforms as it reaches its now-reduced load-bearing capacity or distorts the structure through expansion, particularly at connections. Once a structure starts to move it becomes a dynamic mechanism and the usual rules of statics that are followed in structural design go out the window in favor of dynamics, a whole different concept that makes a lot of third-year engineering majors despondent. Momentum takes over and amplifies loads to the point that nothing in normal construction will offer any significant resistance to that motion. Force = mass x acceleration, and acceleration is an exponential function that is negligible in statics.

This is something all architects and engineers understand, or should understand. There are a few enthusiasts who think that they have The Truth and that the other 99+% of professionals are blind blockheads. These people exist in every profession, and we grow impatient with them.

The Oklahoma City bombing had a far-reaching effect on structural design, demanding more redundant structural design and second-order analysis that concerns what happens when a structure is affected by an external force. The collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis had the same effect on bridge design. 9/11 had more effect on ensuring that there were survivable means of egress, that fire protection systems were better protected, that structural fireproofing was more robust, and that command and communications mechanisms were more effective and pre-planned. Acroterion (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right on cue, discussions of structural design and communications post 9/11: building design changed after 9/11, communications: Lessons from 9/11 . Acroterion (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:The NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I forgot about this, I'll work on it. Thanks! -Mannydantyla (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing from the congress IP

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing from the congress IP. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 17:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a happy new year!

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas, hope you're having a relaxing time during this period and that next year will be even better for us all here.★Trekker (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:The NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:The NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation. Thanks! KJP1 (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation has been accepted

The NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MadeYourReadThis (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]