User talk:MisprisionofTreason

September 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. –túrian^patois 04:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 11 Arbcom[edit]

RxS (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. –túrian^patois 04:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add defamatory content, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. –túrian^patois 11:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...[edit]

I never said they were wrong, I just said it was inappropriate for the place. The were just calling a spade a spade. –túrian^patois 18:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spade is a spade indeed, speaking of appropriate, did you know that when people feel the need to piss, they usually do it in their own yard? It is the very basic of common decency and etiquette. Then again, there are all sorts of people. Go figure, eh? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see your point... –túrian^patois 00:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to see why these 'well intended' warnings are misplaced? Has it occur to you that it's far easier to impose the block if the 'off topic' administrator sees the talk page filled with 'signs of misconduct'. Do you think that such tactic is used often? Does Wikipedia have a name for such tactics?

Why don't you take a sober look at the remarkably frequent, blatant and unrestrained defamation spread by your fellow editors, go to their talk pages and you may see the point. Would you like to continue this conversation about 'vandals, loons, nuts and trolls' out there? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others will worry about them. But this ridiculous agenda you seem to be pushing (since the onyl edits you have are on that page) is getting old. Either be productive and stop creating unnecessary conflict, or edit another article. –túrian^patois 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Productive? Agenda? Edit conflict? Brother, I've just asked you not to engage in such... why don't you provide some references for each claim you've made. MisprisionofTreason (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try the entire September 11th talk page. –túrian^patois 01:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You try it, you're the one who's alleging misconduct. Is opening discussion about 'new investigation' some sort of 'ridiculous agenda pushing, edit conflicting, unproductive' engagement? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=313667793

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=313732004

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=313732420

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=313734202

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=313738080

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=313741752

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=313821119

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=313982012

Want more? I am basically saying that another policy violation and I will report your behavior and request a check user. –túrian^patois 01:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked your link-spam, I see nothing but references, opinions and questions on the page that serves for that very same purpose. To which of those do you object, and which one are violating our policies? Remember the note about etiquette? I wonder when you'll see that point? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That same attitude right there. Wikipedia is NOT a forum nor is it a medium to "prove" something to other editors." Asking why people are there is incivil. So you have made defamatory remarks and used it as a forum despite multiple warnings. –túrian^patois 01:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've asked the editors how is it possible that person has to create an account to provide dozens of down to earth mainstream links, while the editors who state they are 'working hard' on the article, do nothing but play with, I'm bored to hell with them, 'conspiracy theories'. At the time of memorial! So you see, it was not about 'proving things', it was very clear, I'd even say serious question. That said, you've invited yourself here, you are running amok on my talk page, you keep spreading unfounded accusation you fail to substantiate, and you are lecturing me about the attitude while issuing warnings like we are in some 'rabbit hole'????!!! Perhaps you need to cool down a bit? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I take a WP:DGAF mentality. I just do what is right. –túrian^patois 01:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, just try to avoid those 'Bad ways to not give a...' MisprisionofTreason (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked, because it is suspected to be a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. MuZemike 03:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Let's be crystal clear about this one, for future records, you've blocked the editor (tachyonburst is not the origin, you folks know what you are doing and you keep doing it) based on nothing but suspicion and unsubstantiated allegation of misconduct which is allegedly committed on a talkpage of an article? This decision basically says that people shouldn't come to talkpages to start discussion or point out the well known facts about the clear, persistent and consistent misconduct of the editors who 'own certain articles' and 'refuse to let go' as they break every single guideline and policy we have in store. This decisions state that questions shouldn't be asked. It should be noted that our dirty, hushed, yet public secret that group of editors is engaged in blatant 9/11 Cover up is plain to see around the globe and the fact that it continues with silent consent of our policy-makers harms this project in the same manner in which 9/11 attacks harm 1st amendment. Our mission is to provide the facts, and nothing but the facts. We cannot be a place for disseminating misinformation or for omission of information; I'm certain that every one of 'independent editors' understands why such course constitutes failure. I think that our reluctance to recognise that 'damage control is nothing but damage done' is hurting this project to the point where its future is endangered. I want a chance to bring some of the allegation I've made here to the ArbCom in clear and elaborate manner so we may seek ways to give the project of the people for the people back to the people. It is my opinion that block is unjustified, I ask administrate to reaffirm it and I'll accept your decision - indefinitely.

Decline reason:

Obviously, we can't handle the truth. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Lol, no brother, you can't handle the facts. Well that's a wrap up, bye! MisprisionofTreason (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]