User talk:Quantumentanglement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Quantumentanglement! Thanks for weighing in over at the September 11, 2001 attacks article discussion. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, Quantumentanglement, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I too would like to welcome you.
Being polite does not mean you cannot be accurate. Tony0937 (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi...sorry but the changes you are trying to make to numerous articles are not based on facts, but myths. I hope you can adjust your contributions and stick to reliable sources. As far as whether there were 19 hijackers who hijacked the planes on 9/11, I think this is well documented in the article already. If you believe there is a reliable source which refutes that evidence, please add that reference rather than adding fact tags to already well documented information. Thanks.--MONGO (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Refrain from placing improper "warnings"[edit]

The "warning" you placed on User:Mongo's talkpage was inappropriate, and I have removed it. Mr Which??? 07:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

His behavior isn't disruptive, yours is. And as for placing warnings, the specific behavior needs to be cited, not just a general "you're being disruptive, stop it." But, as I said, you're in no position to be placing "warnings" (there's a reason I put that word in quotes), to anyone at this point. Fact-tagging well-documented facts is disruptive. Mr Which??? 07:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
He did not "act as a vandal." You are being disruptive, and will be blocked if you do not stop. Consider this an official warning. I am placing a note at the administrator's noticeboard regarding your behavior, so appropriate steps can be taken if you refuse to curb it. Mr Which??? 07:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
my apologies, and thanks for the warning, not sure who's proper and who's not, at the moment, that is… Quantumentanglement (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is a link to the note about your behavior that I placed on the Administrators' noticeboard. Mr Which??? 07:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a HUG[edit]

Looks like you need one. A smile a or a word of encouragement is my gift and I hope that it helps. Remember some us have jobs and family that we need to spend time with. We cannot be on the wiki 24/7 like some others seem to be. If you get yourself banned you are no help at all. Remember that there are good people in this world. Tony0937 (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia and the 911 truth movement I do not know what the percentage is now but I know a lot of people are aware that 911 was an inside job or at least know that something is not quite right. Here in Edmonton I participated in my first "Civil Information" activity by giving away DVD's on a subway platform with a couple of other local activists on December 11th 2007. The method is not to be loud or intrusive but we gave away over a hundred DVD's in about 4 hours. The DVD's were "911 Mysteries" and "9/11 Blueprint for truth". I had already given out half a dozen or so of these to family and friends and in every case in the end they were absolutely convinced, but it took them a while. The first one I gave away was to a physics professor. I have found that with us older folk (48) we like our facts "dry" so Blueprint is the one for most older folk. I now carry around a copy or two in case an opportunity arises to give one away. A similar method is to have coffee with couple of friends with a sign or, better yet, a computer with one of the DVD's playing. If anyone is curious you offer them a DVD.
I think that "Loose Change final cut" is good too now as a companion piece since it puts the whole thing in perspective (is that really Dan?). I know that I watched an earlier version and when he was talking about the Pentagon and Shanksville my skepticism kicked in and a I was back on the fence. It wasn't I until I watched Blueprint that I was really convinced and even then it took 2nd viewing and a pile of research to get it settled completely. The truth movement has come a long way and the facts are on our side but we need the be scrupulous about how we behave.
I am here at wikipedia knowing that game is rigged but facts are facts and people have a right to know.Tony0937 (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing[edit]

I strongly suggest you take a break from editing all 9/11 related topics. You've only been here 4 days and you've already caused quite a lot of trouble. Please take a step back, review our policies and guidelines, and try to edit something you don't hold quite such dogmatic views about. Cheerio! Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 11:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule[edit]


Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Aude (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Final warning[edit]

Please refrain from further tendentious editing of September 11, 2001 attacks. Your behavior there constitutes edit warring, and if continued will result in temporary suspension of your editing privileges. While your intent may sincere, please recognize that Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it a place for righting great wrongs. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

after four day waiting period i've just got my editing privileges, and it would be a bummer to loose those, however, i'd appreciate if the focus would be placed on the facts, not opinions. request was clear, there is a particular and recognizable group of editors there which are persistently and consistently acting with bias and disregard to the npov. i'd appreciate if the conspiracy theories or fringe theories would be left out of all this, because those are neither interesting, nor they have a single thing to do with the ongoing dispute (edit warring if you prefer). it might be a bit eccentric view, but if you point to those while we deal with the facts, you're actually sharing an insult. in any way, i'm thankful for your warning. if you deem that my actions are inappropriate, enforce the ban. Quantumentanglement (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
For a start, please be aware of Wikipedia's three-revert rule, which you have violated on that article. Since you're a new editor I'm not going to block you for it. But in the future please respect both the letter and spirit of that policy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
i've seen (even heard about) that rule while i've examined some of the guidelines and policies, i'm a bit sorry that i've failed to keep it on mind, it will not happen again. Quantumentanglement (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, you really should make an effort to use conventional punctuation and capitalization here. All-lowercase is common on bulletin boards and such, but Wikipedia adopts a more formal and literate tone. It may seem like a small thing but if you keep writing in all-lowercase people will likely assume you're a noob who is unfamiliar with (or dismissive of) the community's standards, and might not take you seriously. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll take your kind advice with the deepest appreciation. Many thanks. Quantumentanglement (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


No, it's actually you gave the wrong link on WP:AN. I can access the site perfectly with the link on the 9/11 talk page. —Kurykh 04:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


Hi Quantum. I realize you are new, and I have no desire to drive you away at the moment, as often new editors take a while to get the feel for Wikipedia. However, I believe that some of your statements in the past few days show some serious problems, and a such, I have opened up a Request for Comments about your conduct here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quantumentanglement. Please know that this isn't a punishment in any way; however, it is a way of trying to get community input on whether a user's actions are acceptable, and, if not, to get the user to change them. Please take the notes here to heart. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


Please also read up on WP:AGF. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've read it, and I'm somewhat surprised that you know about it. Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


The FOIA autopsy document[1] clearly states that it is providing a list of the IDENTIFIED bodies. The FOIA document does NOT claim to account for all bodies found. As a result the FOIA autopsy document is consistent with the secondary sources, and you have no argument remaining. Rklawton (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Appendix L[edit]

I've read it. It's not there. Rklawton (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That is, neither source states that a "report on the collapse of this building is still pending". Therefore you can not make such a claim. Please take more care with your editing. Your pattern of edits is disruptive, and I won't hesitate to block your account from editing if this continues. Rklawton (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a interim report on the Working Collapse Hypothesis, please restrain from making threats, please assume the good faith. Quantumentanglement (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not a threat. It's a warning. We warn editors when they are crossing the line in order to give them a chance to change their behavior. I'm assuming good faith by assuming you might take heed and change accordingly. Without this assumption, I would have blocked our account a week ago. Rklawton (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Rklawton is entirely correct. I have tried to steer you away from disruption and toward constructive editing, but my powers of persuasion seem to have failed. If you don't pull back from the brink soon your Wikipedia experience will be a short and unhappy one, and nobody wants that. I don't like blocking people but I'll do it to prevent disruption to the project. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


{{helpme}} I'm not sure what to do; I've brought whole lot of mess upon myself. A group of editors cornered me, the RfC was initiated, I'm not denying partial responsibility for my current situation but my call for advocacy which was here is now deleted. I'm not sure what to make out of the explanation provided in the deletion log, I'm not sure if the action of the administrator who deleted the page is appropriate. Please assist. Thank you. Quantumentanglement (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be significant, the fact that another administrator removed this page earlier. The page was restored upon request. Quantumentanglement (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. As you'll see from the RfC, I've agreed that bringing an RfC against you was probably not the greatest of ideas, and probably contravened the policy on biting newcomers. That said, I think you may be able to benefit from getting to know some of the guidelines associated with Wikipedia - I think you have good intentions at heart, and will make a good editor, so would not like to see this incident, cropping up early on in your editing history, discouraging you from continuing your involvement in this project. May I suggest that you leave the whol 9/11 area for a bit - there are plenty of other bits of the project that could benefit from your help. Have a look at WP:Cleanup for administrative tasks that everyone can contribute to, or perhaps WP:RC Patrol to keep the pages cleared from vandalism.
I don't think that any of the pages have been removed, and then restored. The page you link to is the discussion page for the RfC (which is at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Quantumentanglement, not the actual RfC itself (which is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Quantumentanglement).
I've removed the help tag, but if you have any further questions feel free to replace it, or ask me on my talk page. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 11:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
For the record, no one bit him. I have serious doubts as to whether he is even a new user, especially after he dropped a "vandalism" warning on Mongo for simply reverting his frivolous fact tags. He has also rebuffed numerous attempts to help him understand where he's going wrong, so I also find his "help me" tag a bit disingenuous. Mr Which??? 14:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
For the record. I've been using wikipedia for many years, I'm not sure if that makes me an old user.., I'm not denying that I've looked at the talkpages for reasons of verification and I did edit some pages without feeling the need to register. In a way, one might say that I know a lot of users who are regularly editing particular pages of my interest and that some basic editing skills are known to me.
But no, I had no contact with any of you and no, your allegations are not welcomed here.
That said, I'd like to see page restored as it is linked to the ongoing RfC where I'd like to make further comments on some of the latest developments.
Whatever be the case I'll stress very clearly now, do not pursue this line of intimidation or unfounded accusations. I'm well aware of some of the basic policies because the talk pages are filled with those. As for the help tag which I've posted here, I've encountered such option for the very first time at the page which explains our deletion policies. I'm really not in the mood, nor do I think there is a need for this sort of accusations/explanations. My behavior should be understandable, as seen below, the approach which was undertaken by some editors is well known in the community, I do not think I've acted inappropriately and I admit that I'm sensitive to such utterly unacceptable approach because I did seen it before. Regardless of your perspectives, I'd say I've restrained from sharing an open insult on more than one occasion, IMO, some basic civility is as basic as our neglected NPOV policy. Hope this answers some of your doubts, although it certainly doesn't explain your inability to use good faith or to restrain from a bite!
Please answer my request and restore that page. Thank you. Quantumentanglement (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Can't "bite" someone who's been here for years. No one is purusing a "line of intimidation or unfounded accusations." We have made it very clear to you that you need to change course from your current trajectory. If you do not, there is a strong chance you will be blocked. That is not a threat, it is a simple fact. Editors who engage regularly in disruptive editing, and who refuse to stop in the face of multipe editors advice, are blocked to prevent disruptiong. That's just how it goes, as you know, having been here for years. Mr Which??? 00:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You are deliberately misinterpreting a very clear post? So more involved wikipedia readers are to be treated as long term wikipedia editors? Is it so? I've posted the lines above with good intentions and you came back here to provide more of… eh… Who will restore that page? Do you have an ability to do so? I'd be thankful… as for your interpretation, I'm rather busy in real life and it took me some time to even make a decision to contribute to the project. But I'm not in the mood to explain this to you, because your actions and your lack of good faith and your need to sting do not allow it. Quantumentanglement (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I came back here to let you know that you are not being "threatened." We're trying to caution you from your current path. If you agree to stop trying to push your views that there were no Arabs on the flights of 9/11, then you will not be blocked. If you continue trying to push that fringe view, you will. It might be worth your simply taking a break from editing any 9/11-related articles for awhile. Focus on something less controversial that interests you, perhaps. Mr Which??? 01:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
That discussion ended yesterday, restore the damn page which explains why and how did it end! Since you insist, I will now share my thoughts about your conduct; you are painting a new editor (by any definition) with all sorts of libel, deliberately, persistently and with great effort. I'm rather annoyed at the moment, my apologies if this is unfounded, but it is my opinion and I'm sharing it with sincerity. Quantumentanglement (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


Maybe you could have a look here. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's your screed, have fun with charging everyone who disagrees with you with 'gaming the system' and 'soapboxing', as if you are a pure and innocent snowflake[edit]

Some of the basic policies and guidelines broken by the wolf pack involved in this dispute:

  1. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers
  2. Wikipedia:Harassment
  3. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  4. Wikipedia:Etiquette
  5. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
  6. Wikipedia:Don't create hoaxes
  7. Wikipedia:Spam
  8. Wikipedia:Vandalism
  9. Wikipedia:Verifiability
  10. WP:SOAP
  11. Wikipedia:Gaming the system

Any unbiased administrator with time and will can easily spot these violations in related discussion. Administrators will notice that I've been greeted with crank and CT talk, which I find uncivil and inappropriate enough to provide an equally inappropriate answer. Administrators will notice that I've stated how I work long hours and therefore have no time for digressions or/and soapboxes. Administrators will notice that these same editors took the ownership of the article in question and that they are gaming the system. I don't think that such behavior or neglect of such behavior is acceptable, I'm demanding higher oversight on this matter and I'm kindly asking for some sort of the advocacy. If there is a need to elaborate these claims further, please be kind and leave some instructions here or at my talkpage. Thank you. Quantumentanglement (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that discussion ended at the moment in which editors involved stopped with, what I'll consider a soapbox, and finally provided valid and logical arguments. Do note, such approach was something that was expected in the first place. Do note that greeting newcomers with CT label is not a civil welcome and it should be avoided at any cost. Finally, do note that each coin has two sides and that some of you acted inappropriately and provoked me into actions which were neither prudent nor necessary. Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We have a policy against using primary sources - which we pointed out to you at the outset. You refused to accept this. You ended up losing the argument for the very reasons we have this policy in place - but not before you wasted a considerable amount of our time first. This amounted to WP:TE if not outright trolling. And now you dare to accuse us of being a "wolf pack"? Had we not pursued this matter, YOU would have been responsible for adding misinformation to an encyclopedia article. Indeed, you should feel grateful that we stood up to you and took the time to show you your error. If you care about creating accurate encyclopedia articles, you should thank us, not call us names. If you care about this encyclopedia, (assuming your good faith), then we've done you a tremendous favor. Rklawton (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Instead of mumbling about conspiracy theorists and similes you should have used the arguments in the first place, you can try to spin our discussion, but the facts remain in our history. Instead of crank talk and CT greetings you could have used the argument which is logical and I would accept it as such, as I did. Quantumentanglement (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, so I shouldn't call a crank theory a crank theory? Why is it you couldn't see for yourself it was a crank theory? Have you no ability to think critically for yourself? Rklawton (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
There is not a single primary source which will put those Arabs aboard. What is so cranky about it? Why is so difficult to accept that fact? Should we go back there and continue this diatribe? I'm reluctant to do that.

Conspiracy theories section[edit]

This section contains a link to the main article. The main article introduces a variety of notable conspiracy theories. Adding a link to just one of these conspiracy theories at the top of this conspiracy theory section places undo weight on that one theory, and thus it isn't appropriate. Given your poor track record editing this article, I wish to encourage you to refrain from editing this article and all and use the article's talk page to gain consensus for your edits first. You will find that meritorious ideas are not long overlooked. If, on the other hand, you have no faith in this process, then you probably won't be happy editing this encyclopedia. Rklawton (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just took a look at the article about conspiracy theories, it's much more rounded than last time I've visit. Controlled demolition hypothesis (or conspiracy theory as you've just called it) has at least as much weight as fire and debris conspiracy (or NIST's working hypothesis as some call it). I'm just illustrating the flaw at the moment… and I'll probably agree with you when you state that Controlled demolition hypothesis doesn't belong into the section about conspiracy theories. I'd say that both hypotheses belong to the section about notable hypotheses and that the term conspiracy is a poor term which needs to be marginalized… You are repeatedly howling (beg your pardon) about my conduct. I don’t think that there is a base for such point. I did some things which might be inappropriate, undeniably, but removing a request for a citation (which we still lack by the way, because we don't have a single document, single primary source which will put the Arabs aboard) is neither trolling nor vandalizing and if you remove such request while your only argument is CT libel than you should be ready to accept appropriate response. I could have continued down this particular line, but I've said it there. Dead end, I've wrote. As for your final statement, it should be clear by now that I have the faith in the process and I'm sure that this will be clearer in the days to come… not sure if I'll be happy though, as a matter of fact I'm a bit unhappy at the moment. Quantumentanglement (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Your happiness or unhappiness is not the primary goal here. Writing a reliable, trustworthy encyclopedia is. Currently, you're not assisting in that goal. In fact, you are inhibiting it. Mr Which??? 03:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


You are disrupting the encyclopedia with your editing patterns and POV. Please take time to review our policies and consider using {{unblock}} when you are ready to contest the block. John Reaves 04:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to contest, I had my share and I bow to the consensus reached within this fine and welcoming community. Farewell! Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh my, I've just realized that my block is indefinite in nature? Is that appropriate? So I've engaged into discussion on the talk page and asked for citation on particular matter, and it was violation for which one deserves stoning and 'excommunication' from the community? This is rather radical, is it not?! Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Given that you've made no useful edits and many tendentious edits? No. You were warned repeatedly. Rklawton (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
But monsieur my edits made no impact on the main article space, and the discussion I've fueled was useful and constructive… at the end it was… Well, ok, if you say so… but I do think you have a huge problem on your hands, I'd classify it as atavism… he, he… might be wrong though.., well, I've said it before, I bow to the consensus, but I really do think that you boys outdone yourselves on this one! The whole wolf pack should be disbarred, no doubt about that… eh, when and if that happens, leave me a note, I'm sure I can contribute here in mindful, decent and logical manner. Best wishes to everyone… Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
{{unblock|Happy Festivus & best wishes to every1}}.

You may request unblock, but please do not use the unblock template for any other purpose. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Alleged vs. Fact[edit]

Though I'm sure it is heated, and plenty of discussion is going on about it to this day...

With so many conspiracy theories and legitimate arguments out there, should the page for 9/11 present the "official" story of 9/11 as being so factual? As I read the intro, which explicitly states, "coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda", I wonder if this should be presented as allegedly happening. Perhaps the statement should be noting that "coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda", and other such statements about what caused 9/11, are the "official" story. The conspiracy theory section makes it seem like there is just a small number of wack jobs out there... but I personally do not think the arguments should be so easily sectioned off. Regardless of how strong the arguments are, that 9/11 happened exactly the way it is reported, is the possibility of another force at work enough to challenge such unambiguous statements? Challenge them in a way demanding more words like: "seems" "allegedly" "officially" "sources/evidence shows" etc? These types of statements present the most popular view regarding the attacks while allowing room for other arguments.

Language is infinitely ambiguous, this can not be ignored. Here is one of those occasions in which embracing that ambiguity seems fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnarg515 (talkcontribs) 08:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You could just as easily say the Earth "supposedly" is round instead of flat; the Sun "seems" to be powered by nuclear fusion rather than a very large hibachi; and so on. There is a point where facts are so widely accepted that qualifiers are unnecessary. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
As the recent news show, the fact that CIA omitted, obstructed and destroyed evidence sought by 9/11 Commission is well known and widely accepted fact. Same goes for WTC 7 collapse or for lack of evidence on each and every part of the grand play. It won't be long now, and people will be certain who evolves around whom or is the earth really flat. I'm certain that the contributors already implemented changes to the article, changes which will clearly state that the members of Commission accuse CIA for illegal activities and destruction of evidence? Right? Quantumentanglement (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The CIA and torture has nothing to do with 9/11 and the #7 building. Less than nothing, in fact. Your recent comments are making it very clear that you will continue your problematic editing should you be unblocked, and thus are further augmenting the already strong case for the block. Mr Which??? 14:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
As usual your particular, extremely strong POV doesn't allow any rationality, I'm certain that you'd be able to see that if you would take a careful look at the mirror. As for your claim, you read news, yes?
CIA Tapes Were Kept From 9/11 Panel, Report Says
And these tapes have nothing to do with whether Arabs were on the planes, how the #7 building collapsed, etc. Mr Which??? 15:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Why are you so persistent? The discussion about Arabs ended days ago… did it not? You know how it ended? It's all over this page. There was nothing disruptive or destructive in it, and it did end, and I was blocked like some villain by the villains who don't know any better. And now you continue to enforce your POV around these other issues, because you would rather ban than have a discussion? Because people who could provide some clear and logical arguments are locked?! After harassment, mind you! Bah, you do not have a consensus if the consensus is enforced, you do not have NPOV if there is just one point of view. If that part of wiki is not editable, say so at the page. Put the tag there, state it. No trespassing, editors who abide to the laws of physics and editors who do not believe in ways and the means of higher agenda are not welcomed and will be shot. Quantumentanglement (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
9/11_conspiracy_theories Has a large, massive even, collection of alternate hypotheses, that just plain would overwhelm the main 9/11 article (and as you may have noted, we have many articles discussing multiple perspectives). Trying to cram it all into one article just wouldn't work. For example, there's a whole article just on Responsibility_for_the_September_11,_2001_attacks, which discusses numerous perspectives 'who' was responsible. I'd be very careful about editing those pages, as well, simply because editors can be extremely passionate about this topic, but you might find those articles less abrasive to your POV. Oh, and welcome to edit wars on wikipedia. You just dove right in, didn't you? ;) Ronabop (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Quantumentanglement (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

Indefinite expulsion was not in order, I kindly ask for block to be lifted. If my contributions prove as nuisance again, you may reinstate it. Thanks.

Decline reason:

You have to convince us that your edits won't be a nuisance again. How have you changed since you were blocked? How will your editing be different? — Yamla (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2008 (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.

This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Quantumentanglement (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

I will use logic and restrain to make any changes in main articles space without reaching consensus, I'll also comply with all of our rules and policies.

Decline reason:

Given past performance and behavior, it seems unlikely. — ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2008 (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.

Thank you for your time. Quantumentanglement (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)