User talk:Richard McManus

August 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Path to 9/11, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. --Hunterm267^Talk 16:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How Wikipedia works

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Wikipedia presents the reality-based consensus on the 9/11 attacks (what you mislabel as the "government version") as fact. We do not tolerate conspiracy theorism much to begin with but 9/11 conspiracy theories are especially unwelcome. You're free to edit other parts of the site but leave 9/11 related articles alone. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McManus, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Richard McManus! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

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 why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for you to draw people into pissing contests you clearly want to start, nor is it a place for you to promote your paper on. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on professionally-published mainstream sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not arguing. I simply stated me and architects and engineers want a new Congressional investigation of 9/11 because there is irrefutable scientific evidence that the World Trade Center buildings did not collapse on 9/11 due to fire that used fuel from hydrocarbon materials for example, office furnishings. I also offered readers of Wikipedia to read my 100 paged research paper listing this scientific evidence and evidence what when it is presented in a court (like eye witness statements under oath or documents) adds up to probable cause that a crime was covered up by the 9/11 Commission and the main stream media.

Richard McManusRichard McManus (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Richard McManus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18952 was submitted on Aug 10, 2017 00:19:11. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, your UTRS appeal would be rejected on the grounds that you could have appealed here. It was oddly prescient given that you continued on this page the same behavior that got you blocked to begin with. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]