User talk:Perscurator

Welcome!

Hello, Perscurator, 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I noticed you changed a comment made by another user. In general, one should not do this, and when one does so anyway, e.g. improving layout, it may be a good idea to mention this in the edit summary.

Thanks for your remarks, I like them. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vesku

Just to make sure you know, you are not allowed to make use of more than one user account at any one time. It is considered sockpuppetry, a concept similar to shilling, and can result in a ban if the behavior persists. This isn't a threat, just a notification: I would recommend if you are changing from Vesku to Perscurator that you cease all use of the Vesku account immediately to avoid violation of this policy. Welcome to the Project and hope this helps. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request your input in a consensus survey re 9/11

Dear Perscurator,

At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:

"The current form of the 9/11 article is at odds with the WP:NPOV policy, and the proposed inclusion of the fact that Michael Meacher alleges the US government of willfully not preventing the attacks, would make the article better, in stead of worse.

I would appreciate it when you could take a look. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTC7 3RR

Just letting you know you could be blocked under the 3RR rule for your continual reversion of [[1]] If you are unhappy with the article at present please bring it up on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdynas (talk • contribs) 03:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Continual reversion"? Actually, the sentence in question was originally entered by myself quite a while ago, and it was allowed to stay. Then someone suddenly removed it without discussion. Perscurator (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Continual reversion". Meaning; constant, repetitive, incessant etc. & reversion meaning; "A return to a former condition, belief, or interest.". Just reading your reply, I'm guessing you quoted this because you don’t understand the definitions? Well now you do. You cannot deny you reverted a sentence two times in a row in under 24hrs (see history page). Regardless if you are the initial creator of that sentence or not - it doesn’t give you special powers. I am merely suggesting, read the talk page. As you can see, the sentence has been brought up numerous times and decided it should go.Cdynas (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I meant by "it was allowed to stay" was that the sentence, after my original reversal, stayed in the article for weeks before someone removed it under the highly misleading description "spelling correction". Based on the Talk page (including the archived pages), there clearly is no consensus that the large number of credible architects, engineers, physicists and even demolition experts questioning or rejecting NIST's theories should not be mentioned. Please see my entry on the article's current Talk page and continue the discussion there as needed. Perscurator (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Another warning - you've reached 3RR on the Bentham subject. Please attempt to reach consensus on the talk page. Also, please refrain from posting polemics and your own analysis on the talk page: talk pages are for discussion of the article, not a soapbox for your own personal views. Acroterion _(talk) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can see, the last revert I did was to revert my own earlier reversion. :-) Perscurator (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviews

Hiya Pers. My edit summary was poorly worded, so I wanted to drop you a line and let you know that I didn't mean to imply I didn't trust you (re-reading what I wrote in the edit summary, it seems like I could be saying "you're lying"). Rather, my distrust is with the person in charge of the journal. Having followed both sides of the JFK conspiracy, all too often it seems sources (usually, but probably not always, on the conspiracy side of things) are desperate to seem more "official" or reliable than their actual real-world credentials would imply. It's much like my telling you that this Wikipedia comment is peer-reviewed by an international committee. What would strike me as "proof" of peer review would be if a well-established neutral third-party were to state that this particular journal is peer-reviewed by their standards. By "neutral third-party", I mean that I place about as much faith in Alex Jones saying the journal is peer-reviewed as I would in Dubya saying that it isn't. I'm sure there are those on the talk page that could eloquate this issue more completely than I, even if they're not always the most polite in doing so. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment (yes, that interpretation did come to my mind). As you can see, I reverted my own change, pending further clarification of the review process. Perscurator (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom sanctions on 9/11-related pages

As you are an editor involved on pages related to the September 11th attacks, please review this relevant case decided by the Arbitration Committee. Due to serious and ongoing problems on 9/11-related articles, editors who repeatedly fail to adhere to Wikipedia's behavioral standards on these pages may be subject to editing restrictions up to and including a topic ban or block. Please be aware that this set of articles is a long-standing problem area, and that the tolerance for misbehavior on these articles is low. I strongly recommend taking discussion of controlled demolition and conspiracy theories to the those appropriate articles. Regards. --Aude (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the Talk page of the WTC 7 article. It seems that a few editors suddenly decided that a reference to scientific publications, which stayed in the article for long, should be removed without any discussion. Similarly, the reference to the BBC and other sources noting the destruction of evidence without investigation has been removed based on incorrect claims. I think the problems on 9/11 related articles stem from the attempts to push the POV in the articles at any cost. Perscurator (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block warning

Hello Perscurator. Some users of Wikipedia have been restoring text about 'active thermitic material' to a variety of 9/11-related articles, without getting consensus on any Talk page that the material belongs. A variety of regular editors keep removing this change. You may take this as one of the signs that 'active thermitic material' does not have consensus on Wikipedia. We believe that you are capable of realizing this, and of knowing that you should not restore contentious material to an article under Arbcom sanctions without getting wide support. If you continue, you may be blocked for edit warring. A general discussion of this issue is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Problem with recurring sock puppetry. This is the only warning you will receive. EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

I've filed an arbitration enforcement request against you. See WP:AE. Jehochman ^Talk 16:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for meatpuppetry by asking others to edit Wikipedia with a particular point of view at http://www.911blogger.com/node/19833 as the user "Vesa", per WP:ARB9/11 and this AR request. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 06:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have evaded your block as 88.113.224.40 (talk · contribs), I am extending the duration of your block to six weeks. Further evasions of your block may lead to additional extensions. Sandstein 20:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 year topic ban

For the reason and under the authority referred to in the block notification above, you are hereby also topic-banned (i.e., forbidden to edit) any pages related to the events of 9/11 for a year as of this message. If you violate this ban after you are able to edit again, you may be re-blocked or your ban may be extended. Sandstein 06:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Perscurator, I unfortunately have to notice here that CIA has become the main administrator group in the English Wikipedia. Please keep up the good work, I'm sure you can and will do it. Yours, 128.178.83.27 (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]