User talk:Truth in our time

Welcome!

Hello, Truth in our time, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Extraordinary Machine 17:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Three revert rule

I would like to remind you of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. If you continue to restore your additions despite being reverted by multiple other users you can be blocked. Please use this talk page to make your case and gain consensus for your changes. - Tεx τ urε 18:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you just made your fourth revert. This, combined with your blating POV warring, makes me happy to block you for a short period. Trust me, unless you stop this inanity (ooh! you added a second reference to drug addiction to Rush Limbaugh! How witty.), you will be removed for a much longer period. --Golbez 18:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is evident censorship motivated by political prejudice. Reverting means coming back to an earlier version. Here, following from complaints that I made the introduction too "heavy", I moved the discussion of the hijackers' process down the introduction.

I'll file a complaint against you for politically-motivated abuse of power. Goodbye. Truth in our time 18:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to it. However, since you do make a valid point, and to let you bury yourself, here, I'll unblock you. --Golbez 18:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you decided not to. --Golbez 15:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 11, 2001 attacks

You continued attempts to put in the surrender issue is covered below....there is also evidence that the hijackers informed the passengers that they had bombs too...and that may have contributed to the "surrender"...besides, "hundreds" of passengers equals the total on all four planes and once the passengers of the 4th plane realized what was happening, there efforts hardly constitute surrender. Furthermore, your edit to the George W. Bush page isn't accurate...there is no proof he was ever an alcoholic and all the discussion of such is either in the article lower down, or in the link to a more detailed analysis of said issue.--MONGO 18:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bla bla bla. Facts is, there were hundreds of passengers in total, a handful of hijackers in total, and the passengers did surrender (as you yourself noted, they began to resist only when sure that no deal could be worked out to save their lives). So what do you disagree upon? Truth in our time 18:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have though that Golbez made his point quite clear. Your latest edits to September 11, 2001 attacks are not wanted by a majority of users, as you very well know, and your reinserting of very questionable material now constitutes nothing more than a disturbance.

I have to advise you that this is a bannable offence, and I suggest that you adopt softer and more conciliatory manners. Rama 10:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]