Vesku

Please read our three revert rule policy.--MONGO 14:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How many times have you reverted my editing? And why?Vesku 14:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Oklahoma City bombing

Consensus on Oklahoma City bombing is that information regarding the discredited Air Force report should not be added to the main section of the article. If you disagree, please take it to the talk page. Regardless, changing [1] what a cited sentence states is highly inappropriate. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing properly referenced statements in this article to suit your own view is POV pushing in the extreme. It also appears that you are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Wikipedia has the best possible content when editors work collaboratively regardless of their differing views. Please work help build consensus rather than arbitrarily insisting that your perspective is correct. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Vesku, I'm currently not very active on wikipedia. If you still would like my reply, please e-mail. Thx — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

9/11

Hi,

you might want to look at the list I (we) are compiling at: Talk:9/11#NPOV / missing_facts. I appreciate any addition or criticism you can make. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look at your list. And thank you for the barnstar! :-) Vesku (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

barnstar for your work using the Eglin Air force report

I thank you for your efforts in improving wikipedia by taking the trouble to actually get a hard copy of the report!

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your contributions to the Oklahoma City bombing article! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

for pushing a conspiracy theory with a discredited report? :/ ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 09:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Jc-S0CO, I would say: for balancing the article a bit. Reporting the truth is not the same as pushing a theory. The theory that is being pushed in the article, however, is that McVeigh acted alone. There is still work to be done on the article: witnesses who heard a second explosion. Bomb squads who defused a secondary bomb. Experts declaring they will trace the killer using the bomb material.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the point: a discredited report and 'The Truth' are not the same thing. It is biased to edit on the assumption that your position (any position) is the truth without having reliable citations to back you up. And no, you didn't say "for balancing the article a bit"; you said "for your work using the Eglin Air Force report" which, as previously noted, was discredited. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Eglin Air Force report, discredited or not (although I have not seen it discredited), is widely referred to by people who believe that there was a wider conspiracy behind the bombing, and as such merits mention in the section dealing with theories of a wider conspiracy. Some editors had even claimed that the report did not exist, so I think it was also a good thing to settle this once and for all. Vesku (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Perscurator

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)

Thanks. It says on my user page: "Note to other Wikipedia editors: I'm switching to using the name "Perscurator". I may, however, be using "Vesku" in articles to which I have contributed so far." I was suggested to use a redirect, but I'm not yet familiar with how that is done (on the "my preferences" page?).

Well, redirecting a user page won't work since there are automated bots on Wikipedia which remove such things when they find them. Basically, as long as you don't use both profiles to edit on the same pages I think you should be alright. Some people use multiple identities to sneak around the 3-revert limit; others try to pretend to be more than one person in order to make their positions sound like they have stronger support on the talk page, and still others to pit the identities against each other (good hand, bad hand) in a feigned discussion to create a controversy out of thin air. This clearly isn't what you intend to do, but not everyone will know that at first glance. So like I said, just make sure that you don't use both profiles on any one page and you shouldn't have any problems. If you do, drop me a note and I'll vouch for you. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 10:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll follow your good advice.

A propos, I'd be willing to engage in an exchange of views on the "controversial" arguments related mainly to 9/11 and the "war on terror" - in a Habermasian Herrschaft-frei ("domination-free") spirit, if there is a suitable venue in Wikipedia for such exchanges. Vesku (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As noted in policy, the discussion pages associated with articles are meant only for discussing changes to or improvements of the article in question. For more general discussion on a topic, user talk pages are the appropriate venue. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)