Normal nick

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Normal nick! Thanks for the contribution over on the September 11, 2001 attacks article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

• Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and Assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Normal nick, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 04:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Familarize yourself with the Wikipedia three revert rule. I report those that exceed it.--MONGO 04:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi

What do you need help with?--Striver 22:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what to do to bring neutrality back to the page in question? What is the right procedure I should take to solve my dispute? Is it actually possible to be solved? Don't rational arguments have any kind of power at this space? Isn't there any hierarquical superior guy who has more power than those assholes? Does what I did (the argumentation) serve any purpose?

Bro, i have the same problem. I dont know what you should do, i myself try to keep my cool and keep being persistant. If i keep being persistant and cool, i wont burn myself out, and then i can be a support for future people. Try the same, dont get uppset, be cool, hang around for a couple of years, and then we will be two guys keeping stating that they are wrong. After a while, some third and fourth guy will come. Avoid editing the page untill we have majority, editing will only get reverted and get you angry, so there is not much point, keep your efforts to the talk page as long as we are so few that we can get bullied. --Striver 12:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sept 11 Dispute

Hello Normal. I think you are proceeding in a reasonable manner in the dispute. Probably the best thing you can do is stay rational and probably the worst thing a guy could do is get belligerent. Disputes such as this can turn fairly hostile and then they aren't much fun for anybody. The thing is, you can only do so much when faced with strong opposition, especially when administrators are involved. And just like in the real world, being reasonable doesn't always work. This is a very hot topic and some of the people are very passionate about it. I agree with you that the article is not neutral. If you keep doing what you are doing, you might help move it in that direction. SkeenaR 23:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's mostly a chaos in these kinds of articles that cover a heavy political subject, an event where many people died, nobody has really proven anything, and there are allegations of all types of conspiracy from ones that may seem plausible to others that are pretty nuts. I think putting in a request for comment [1] is the best thing you can do right now to get others involved. I know it seems unfair that the people you are in conflict with are administrators and if there is a way to get more admins to look at it, I'm not sure. Ask User:Tom_harrison. He's probably one of the editors and administrators that you are in dispute with, but I'm sure he would help you with any information he might have about getting other admins to look. He's helped me out before while we were in disagreement in other areas. Other than that, probably just be careful about making personal attacks, there is a rule against it. You also might be interested in looking over most of this page. I think the rules are clearly being violated there and it's a good case study of a dispute that lead nowhere. Also,what is the goal you were talking about on Strivers page? Adios amigo. (this would probably be a good place to start)[2] SkeenaR 00:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, I was doing some personal research into the 9/11 alternative theories, and I decided to take a break from reading endless books and reports to check on what Wikipedia had to say. I must say, you defended your point admirably in the Talk page and you have added much to the mounting pile of evidence that is slowly convincing me that not all is as it seems in relation to 9/11. You have argued your point excellently, logicall, and civilly; on the other hand, your detractors have often seemed irrational and illogical. Now, in a situation like this it is impossible to say who is "right," because that leads to a dualistic view of the universe that, as Edward Said says, makes everything more biased than it needs to be. Now, since no one is right, both you and your opponents were making points they believed were right. But I believe you argued the point more effectively by far. Atinoda 01:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

afd

Hi, i would like yo inform you of this afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People questioning the official American 9/11 account--Striver 16:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

September 11 Attacks: Please Join the discussion

Normal Nick, I came accross a rather healthy debate on the discussion page of the 9/11 article posted by a new user Cathal. I think you should have a look and join the discussion. The crux is a list of relevant and factual statements that have been omitted from the article since they discredit the official story. If there is enough support, there may be an opportunity here to bring some balance back into the article in question. Please see 9/11 Talk page under 'Facts and Nothing But'. Also, as an odd sidebar, I have been accused of being a 'sock puppet' of yours by admin:Tom Harrison. Have a look at his talk page, very enlightening. Digiterata 18:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Correction: Thanks for joining back into the debate. I wanted to make a couple of corrections though:

• First, my mistake, it was actually Kmf164 who accused me of being a sock puppet of yours. I found the reference on Tom Harrison's page which is why I was confused.
• Second, the facts listed on the discussion page weren't mine. They were originally posted by Cathal though I do support his points.

cheers Digiterata 22:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)