ApoGnosis

Welcome

---

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the "sandbox" rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You may be better served by focusing your energy on the Moon landing conspiracy theories article instead, which covers your point of view. As for the Apollo articles, our duty as an encyclopedia isn't to reveal some great hidden "truth"; it's to reflect the overwhelming belief within the scientific community that, as crazy as it sounds, we actually landed some guys on the moon and the missions actually happened as described. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I never claimed that it was some 'hidden' truth. It is obvious to me that that evidence presented by NASA in support of the moon landings is fake. As for why others don't see it, I dunno. I don't think the truth is hidden, I think your mind hides from the truth. Why you mind does that I dunno, in part to protect you from experience emotional trauma. You are the one suggesting that there is some hidden truth that Wikipedia.org has no duty to reveal. I don't see it that way.

ApoGnosis (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

July 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You are violated Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by stating seriously contested assertions as facts. ApoGnosis (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Apollo program. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have simply stated that the claims made by NASA regarding the Apollo program are disputed. This is not vandalism. Your administrative actions on Wikipedia are toxic and your admin privileges need to be revoked. ApoGnosis (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Bongwarrior, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It is strange to me that my efforts to document NASA claims as "disputed" has led to such comments as above. I have lost much respect for the Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. From this interaction it seems clear to me that your organization exhibits a strong statist bias. This is a cognitive bias where claims made by government agencies are accepted as fact. Any person or group that disputes those claims is marginalized without regard to evidence.

Wikipedia is intentionally biased toward reliable sources and mainstream documentation, with a strong preference for peer-reviewed research, such as that produced by NASA. It requires that fringe points of view be covered in due proportion to their coverage in such sources, which is a frequent source of frustration to conspiracy theorists and promoters of fringe theories. See WP:RS, WP:V, WP:FRINGE. Acroterion (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Acroterion

I do not see how suggesting that a user may be smoking a bong is a personal attack, if they self-identify as User:Bongwarrior On the other hand, I do not self-identify as a "conspiracy theorist" and consider this suggestion to be, if not a personal attack, at least an Ad hominem attack. What conspiracy have I theorized about? None. What fringe theory have I promoted? None. I have simply stated that the claims made by NASA regarding the Apollo program are disputed. The sources that I use are reliable by the standards that you give. The sources that I cite even come from within NASA, for example Brian O'Leary's public skepticism

I understand your requirement for proportionality. However my comments were categorized not as "out of due proportion", but as vandalism. This I strongly object to.

ApoGnosis (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

After considering your recent edits to Apollo program, it's evident that your behaviour constitutes edit warring, and an administrator may opt to rescind your editing privileges temporarily to prevent further disruption. Thanks. Meph^talk 14:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

User:Mephistophelian, User:Acroterion

I see that you are a defender against vandalism. Laudable. It seems I am a crusader for truth, and was not aware of any means to arbitrate between my views and that of User:Bongwarrior. I suppose it was this ignorance which led to the behavior your characterize as "edit warring". I'm sorry It was not my intention to be disruptive.

I see that the Wikipedia has a section which Argues for zoophilia. In many cultures such arguments are taboo. I do not agree with this argument. However, I applaud your bravery in allowing this opposing argument within the article. I think we get closer to the truth only when all points of view are heard.

In my case, I thought it appropriate to document that members of the scientific community dispute many of the claims made by NASA regarding the Apollo program. These disputes are published in peer reviewed journals and backed by photographic, physical and eye witness evidence.

I see now that such views are taboo within your organization to an extent that exceeds that of bestialty. In my view, you have allowed yourself to become a conduit for State Propaganda. Specifically, members of your organization have used the following propaganda techniques:

Ad hominem

Appeal to authority

Appeal to fear

Labeling

Oversimplification

Milieu control

Name-calling

This realization has destroyed the meaning of Wikipedia brand in my view and I have lost a great deal of trust in the volunteers and employees of the Wikimedia Foundation.

ApoGnosis (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ApoGnosis. You have new messages at Talk:Apollo program.
Message added 01:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VQuakr (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

ApoGnosis, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi ApoGnosis! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

Reliable sources

Greetings, if you wanted to talk in more detail about the role of reliable sources in Wikipedia, feel free to drop by my talk page. As mentioned on the article talk this is not a forum for debate since our goal is to accurately reflect the sources, but reliable sources do not have to be print materials either. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)