Mik-kiss

Hello, Mik-kiss and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Red Director (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Fringe promotion

Please note that Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION of WP:FRINGE theories. Articles should also avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE (i.e. a "mainstream conspiracy" vs other conspiracy thories). While it's acceptable to wikilink to articles inline where relevant (such as these: 9/11 Truth movement and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth), external links to such should only exist as the official site on their specific article. They are not reliable sources (WP:RS) for Wikipedia. If you would like to assess if a source is usable, that can be done at WP:RSN (and searching its archives). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I will definitely consider the points mentioned here. But what to do to correct untrue information that is wrongly referenced from an article. I think that at least mistakes of this kind must be corrected i.e. the source must be fererred as it is in the source itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 03:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You're free to believe such positions, however, Wikipedia is meant to be a work of scholarship that relies on reliable sources. For such information to be added, it would have to come from the mainstream scientific communities first. In other words, the scientists would have to be won over first. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing Harizotoh9 did. We use reliable sources, not fringe. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

And one other quick note -- there is already a link in the article to our page on the conspiracies (see the cultural influence section). Antandrus (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

To Antandrus: there is not any link to the truth movement. SO that must be allowed there to maintain credibility and allowing any scientific critique like critique from 3000 scientific architects and engineers. At the moment there are "references" from Tv-shows allowed so wiki can not deny credible critique of the official 911-account either.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on User talk:MONGO were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Please also be sure to sign any "contribution" you may make to a Talk page. David J Johnson (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your advise. BR Mik-kiss— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

edit war

You appear to be edit warring over a number of pages, please read wp:editwar and stop.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring and exceeding the 3 revert limit

Rather than a template, I'm leaving a more personal note. Wikipedia has a policy against edit-warring and excessive reverts on a page - it's at WP:3RR. Right now, you're at that 3 revert limit and will very probably end up blocked from editing if you continue to revert. You MUST discuss the issue on the article talk page and see if you can get consensus with the other editors before trying to make further changes. Continuing to push your version can be viewed as edit-warring, even if you don't revert more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, and can also lead to being blocked. There's a page on dispute resolution on Wikipedia that you may find some helpful resources.

In general, I agree with the reasons others have reverted you thus far. It's a self-serving link and the phrasing is contrary to WP:FRINGE. Right on wrong, the consensus for mainstream sources is contrary to the ideas of the AE911 group and articles on Wikipedia must be written with that in mind. Besides the FRINGE page, the WP:NPOV page may be helpful to you.

Please don't revert again, trying to force in your link. You will end up blocked from editing. Discuss the issue on the talk page and use the dispute resolution steps, but realize that if consensus is against you, you need to respect that. Ravensfire (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven and Ravensfire. Thank you for your advice. I now will be less eager to put information straight to the wiki-pages and be more in the talk-page. Hopefully wiki does not promote censorship and is willing to give information that is relevant to that/any specific page theme. I am a bit suprised that warranted critique is not allowed in these pages because in scientific sphere it is critique that is a must to make any theory either stronger or forse it to be changed - little or completely in some cases. Thank you again for your words. Mik-kiss— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 17:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Test edits

We are not a lab for the purposes of carrying out sociological experiments, nor are articles a place to make test edits, that is what the sandbox is for.Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources

I recommend WP:IRS which is a good guide on evaluating if a source is reliable for Wikipedia (WP:RS). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I red throug the IRS-information

"Proper sourcing always depends on context"

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources"

"a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation"

In the source video(s) William Rodriguez himself talks live about what he himself has wittnessed and experenced. That the most relable source referencing about what William Rodriguez has said/is saying.

So lets get William back to the Wiki-page about him self or explain to me what more evidence is needed to state that William experienced explosions and is not satisfied that his testimony has been rejected in the States, but not elsewhere (in Spain).

Mik-kiss— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 02:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You'll have to obtain consensus for that on that article's talk page. It's not an article I'm very familiar with, but the youtube video is a primary and self-published source (and has been discussed there before); if you can find a secondary source writing about it, this would likely help for inclusion. To sign posts, please use four tildes (~~~~), that will include the signature as well as a timestamp. Messages can also be indented by using colons (:) as sentence prefix for threading. I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 02:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the September 11 attacks. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Also, continuing to promote conspiracy or fringe theories about 9/11 will likely lead to a topic ban or a block Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guy (Help!) 22:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Guy:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mik-kiss (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been doing every adding in Good Faith. I red through the advice about blocking reasons and unblocking advise and I found primarly these sections that suit to my Good Faith Case: ”Differences that arise where both users are in good faith hoping to improve the project should not be mistaken for "not being here to build an encyclopedia".” A number of users wish to edit, but find it overly hard to adapt to conduct norms such as collaborative editing, avoiding personal attacks, or even some content policies such as not adding their own opinions in their edits Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms A number of users wish to edit, but find it overly hard to adapt to conduct norms such as collaborative editing, avoiding personal attacks, or even some content policies such as not adding their own opinions in their edits. These would be dealt with through guidance, simplified suggestions on how to contribute or reediting the content to the style and standards of Wikipedia. In a small number of cases this may lead to a friendly block with warnings or even bans in some long term cases. Failure to adapt to a norm is not by itself, evidence that a user is not trying to contribute productively and some might require assistance so don't be inconsiderate. Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions in a non-disruptive manner Merely advocating and implementing changes to Wikipedia articles or policies with reliable sources is allowed and even if these changes made are incompatible with certain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it is not the same as not being here to build an encyclopedia. The disagreeing editor should take care to not violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as not reverting due to a lack of consenus, getting the point, and civility in the course of challenging unpopular opinions. I have been actively here some one week trying to add information that I personally have been thinking is important. I clearly missed the point that when/if the subject is not commonly accepted you should 1) be very careful not to edit a page without discussing first about it and get consensus on some adding that you know might be controversial. I have been too hasty and too buzy just putting the additions straight to the wiki pages - without taking the time discussing it first. As I have realized and learned now is that there are two equally important things in Wiki: 1) wiki-community and 2) the encyclopedia. I missed here the community-part. But not any more. I realize that the community partis serious (and enjoyable) business too. And another thing. I also will not any more myself answer by provocativeness if I somehow find someone to behave towards me like that. Next time I can handle those kinds of situations along Wiki-standards and procedures, not changing my normally very polite style accordingly. If there is any questions, I will gladly answer. Yours faithfully, Mik-kiss Mik-kiss (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not convince me you understand WP:RS or that we can be sure you'll never engage in WP:EW again. You are welcome to request another unblock, and a different admin will review that. You will want to explain what WP:RS is in your own words, and explain why the sources you were using were inappropriate under that policy. Yamla (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.