User talk:Gravitor

Welcome!

Hello, Gravitor, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

float

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
  
  

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

— Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 00:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)}

Keep up the good work!

Your work on the Apollo article is greatly appreciated.Noodle boy 11:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, am less than impressed with comments like "Put your money where your mouth is. Show me one piece of independent evidence of human moon landing.". You might want to have a look at WP:V, assuming you haven't already. A review of WP:NPOV might also be in order. --Guinnog 09:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Your recreation of Independent evidence for human Moon landings borders on a potential WP:POINT situation, based on your editing history. You've historically pushed a pretty strong POV that the moon landings were faked, consequently the empty article you're creating smacks of disrupting the project to make some sort of point. Please reconsider how you approach this subject. There are ways you can contribute to the apollo hoax article without letting your bias affect the quality of your edits. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you had been able to resist the delete button for more than a few seconds you would not have seen an empty article. How about helping to build the article rather than destroying other people's work? I know that yo are afraid that the evidence is very weak, but pushing you POV by trying to hide that is not acceptable. Gravitor 01:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is with the utmost in due respect that I draw your attention to the existence of the 'Show preview' button. There is absolutely no reason an article needs to be created in a form that doesn't reflect an acceptable steady state. Every article should be able to stand on its own as a stub (at the very least) from the moment it is first saved. The 'Show Preview' button is the tool that makes this possible. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Chill out. The world won't collapse if you don't delete new articles within 30 seconds. Gravitor 02:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read wikipedia policy

Before renaming a page, it is not only common courtesy, but it is wikipedia policy that this should be discussed on the talk pages. Could you please refrain from this behavior? Lunokhod 10:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It was renamed on the basis of discussion on the talk page. Gravitor 15:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Examination of Apollo moon photos

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Gravitor! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bexample\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

re: total fraud of debunking

i tried very hard to do it on 'what happened to the moon' last year, but ALL my attempts were repeatedly and finally squashed by various editors, most notably from australia, who are government-sponsored agents and who obviously have hidden agenda of discrediting the video that exposed the moon landings as a total hoax. so, i gave up. let the motherf*cukers shit on the truth.

How do we source original research by a Wikipedian?

Hi Gravitor - The short answer to this is: original research is not allowed in wikipedia. Lunokhod 21:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Gravitor 21:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lunokhod and Gravitor about this. I've been trying to find a written reference for the material I added, but apparently none exists. I've put a note up about it on my site at [1], but I don't think that will be reliable enough to reference. That's about all I can do at the moment. Mike Peel 14:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"just goes to show his commitment to destroying this article"

Gravitar, I wish that you would assume good faith before making statements like I am trying to destroy an article. I am honestly trying to help improve the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations article. It was I who rated this article as "High priority/importance" on the WP:Moon project, and it is also I who nominated this topic as a good article in order to get opinions on how to improve it from those who were not intimately involved with this topic. In particular, by using my editorial experience that I excercise in my job on a daily basis, I am trying to (1) help the "hoaxers" by removing material that is clearly in violation of wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and (2) help the "moon landers" by removing material that is also in violation of this policy, though often in a more subtle and cunning way. It appears to me that many of the hoaxers have little experience in writing articles and citing material correctly, and that many of the opponents are two dogmatic to allow for the possibility that a reasonable person could even conceive that such a project was faked. I am sure you know where I stand in this regard, but when it comes to "Fringe" science topics on wikipedia, I always side with the minority viewpoint and attempt to help them formulate their views in a coherent fashion. Lunokhod 16:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be clear to you that an article listing evidence for the landing is not part of the hoax theory. You are behaving like the worst kind of POV crusader. Gravitor 16:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in stating that an article that was titled Evidence for Apollo Moon landings would not be part of the hoax theory (though a small portion of it could be). However, the article Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings is. Implicit in the title is the statement that evidence from NASA and company should not be trusted for some reason, and the only possible reason not to trust a huge governmental and scientific organization is if you are some form of hoax believer. As for your request to reconsider withdrawing my AfD nomination, you have not convinced me that this is a notable subject. I don't think that Evidence for Apollo Moon landings would be notable either, but at least it would not suffer from the other points that I listed in my AfD nomination of which you have yet to address. Finally, could you please read WP:Civility? Sometimes emotions are not conveyed well through written messages, and I am feeling that this entire debate is becoming more and more incivil on your part. I apologize in advance if I am mischaracterizing your behavior, but accusing people of being "the worst kind of POV crusader" and so on is not helpful when trying collaborate on writting an encyclopedia article. Lunokhod 22:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Citing the BBC article

I'd love to be able to provide you with a better reference, but to my knowledge a written one doesn't exist. There's a lot of oral history at Jodrell, only some of which has been written down (and even less of which is publicly available). This bit of information exists only in that oral knowledge (and the raw data, which isn't generally available). Both the BBC article and me are getting the information from the same source - Ian Morrison, who was actually present when the observations were made. I'll keep my eye out for anything written down, and will add it to the article when I find it. I'm sorry I can't do more. Mike Peel 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using the BBC documentary as a source; you are just not citing it correctly. All you have to do is say "Tom Jones claims that such and such happened.." My only complaint is that it is very bad form to say things like, "Tom Jones, a reporter for the new york times, published an article in the thanksgiving issue in which he interviewed someone who said something." In this example, all you neee to say is "someone said something." Hope this helps. Lunokhod 22:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with this reference is that it's not clear to me who actually said it. Gravitor 17:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Independent evidence of Apollo Moon Landings

Well, first off, I'd like to point out that AfD is not a vote, but in any case, I'd be more comfortable with this article as a subsection of some other article. Doesn't matter to me where it ends up though. As it stands, I'm not sure that it has been improved, since I see a lot of uncited references now, but I hope that'll be fixed in later editing. FrozenPurpleCube 23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

conflict of interest + civility

Gravitor - I realize that I am contributing to the english version of wikipedia, but that in itself is no reason to assume that I am an american, live in the states, or work for a US government agency. In fact, I work and live in a country where english is not the primary or secondary language. I am also warning you that you should not use words like "crusade" over and over again. Though many americans (I don't think that I am wrong in assuming you are one based on your statements) are insensitive to muslims and islam in general, other cultures find use of this word very inflamatory. If you continue breaking wikipedia civility codes, I will have no choice than to bring this issue up with the administrators. Lunokhod 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response - I am not convinced by your claim not to work for a US govt agency, you action belie your words. I am perfectly aware of the connotations of 'crusade', and caution you in your assumption about my origins or location. Your pov Crusading, or POV Jihad, if you prefer, is on a par with both of these concepts. Both are destructive, insensitive, and counter-productive. Please desist, and honor your word to stop removing factual information. Gravitor 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Gravitor, your behavior here is inappropriate. Wikipedia depends on people assuming good faith, and your accusations of conspiracy and assuming that everyone is lying to you is a clear violation of this. Please reconsider, you're poisoning the project. If you have a complaint about someone or want to ask someone to change their behavior, there are better ways to go about it than you've been taking. Finally, using the threat of "or I'll complain formally" is uncalled for. Either post a complaint or don't, but menacing people like that is unacceptable. If you have a problem that you can't resolve through discussion without resorting to threats, you should be getting external help from a third party instead of trying to cow someone into submission. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Chairboy, I would love to assume good faith, but as you will see if you examine this case, Lunahkod has gone the extra mile in every case in throwing this back in my face. He has systematically attempted to destroy factual article I am working on, and shown no attempt at neutrality or commitment to Wikipedia. I am at the end of my ability to deal with his disruptive behavior. Gravitor 19:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you continue to accuse me of having "bad faith", without giving any evidence, I will lodge a formal complaint. As the above administrator has already noted, your attitude is becoming more and more combative and disruptive. Please consider taking a few days off to cool down: The Moon hoax pages will still be here when you get back! I promise that I will not propose a merger between the "independent evidence" and "hoax" pages during such a vacation if you take me up on this advice. Lunokhod 00:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, you have proved yourself not to be trustworthy. You did not follow through on your commitment to remove your attempt to delete the evidence page if given notable sources, or explain why not, even when asked three times. Your word is worth nothing. I agree that I have been uncivil at times, and will take steps to moderate my tone, but you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy. Gravitor 03:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You did not provide notable sources that were directly related to the subject matter. Come on, even you know that! And besides, if you wanted to be strict, some of the websites you gave are "not independent" in that they are run by NASA affiliates (ie., DSN) or people who have benefited from NASA. Lunokhod 10:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop deleting content from Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings without discusion

wp:point, wp:own, please be reasonable. Respect (or at least acknowledge) concensus Enough said. Numskll 03:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Content that has nothing to do with the topic should be deleted - but yes, we should take this to the talk page. Gravitor 03:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The topic is intimately related to apollo moon hoax accusations. You've been quoting hoax proponent's broad philosphies on the issue and interlarding various sections with pro hoax editorializing. It's clear you want it to be about the hoax. I'm not sure why you're so fuzzy on scope. Numskll 04:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to talk about the hoax. Take out the hoax ref, and replace it with a non-hoax ref. It's the only one I could find, I'd prefer non-hoax. Gravitor 04:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you want to talk about the hoax? It is clear from your edits at the hoax page that you are trying to use this article to prove a point related to the hoax. Give us a little credit, please! Lunokhod 10:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it so alien to you that someone would set aside their point of view and try to write a neutral, factual article? Please try to control your POV-mongering. Gravitor 01:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you weren't behaving like a POV jihadi (your term BTW) than the idea wouldn't be "so alien." Your inconsistencies are obviously as intentional as your POV pushing is transparent. Numskll 03:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your violation of Three revert rule on Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

It was clearly intended. Calm down. Have some tea or something. Numskll 04:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You too - please read the page before reverting. Gravitor 04:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

what? Read the part where you say, and I'm paraphrasing,"stop it, As owner of this article, only I can add pro hoax quotes?" Chill out. Follow your own advice. Perhaps you'd be better off with a blog. Numskll 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again you're violating the 3RR. Its fine that you have an agenda for the page but work through it like any other editor. you do not own this topic despite your feelings to the contrary. Numskll 18:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'do not won this topic', the issue is to reach consensus, not 'win'. Gravitor 01:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant you don't own this topic. Don't be a hypocrite, you've demonstrated no regard for consensus. It doesn't mean you agree with yourself. Numskll 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of independent evidence of Apollo moon landings article

Gravitor, could you help me by explaining why you decided to create an article related to independent evidence of the Apollo moon landings? I am trying to improve this article, but your edits, as well as your viewpoints expressed on the talk page and hoax page seem to be in coflict with what you are actually doing. Given that you believe in some form of conspiracy theory, was your point to show that there is no independent evidence? or that the independent evidence is really flimsy? Or do you actually believe that the independent evidence supports NASAs claims? Or that the independent evidence is not in fact "independent enough"?

As I have mentioned before, the current title of the article implies that it is related to the hoax page. I can help you change the title to something that might suit you better, and that would not have reference to the hoax page, but you need to help me understand your point of view and what you hope to accomplish with this article. Lunokhod 10:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The purpose is the same as any list - to provide a convenient list of the independent evidence for the landings. It's not about the hoax, it's about the landings. My POV about the landings is not relevant to this article, and the list of evidence should not be couched in the point of view of any individuals. It's just a list. Gravitor 15:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning on Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR.
BTW, I'm warning User:Numskull as well. It's a content dispute, let's try discussing it non-pejoratively for a while. Both of you should hold back from the article page for a while. -- ArglebargleIV 02:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear gravitor. I have not broke the 3RR rule. If you count, you will see that I have in essence reverted the page twice today, and both are because you have refused to explain your reverts on the talk page. Please explain why you believe my content should be reverted. Lunokhod 17:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation, or request for comment?

Hi Gravitor - I would like to request some form of external mediation/comment concerning the "Independent evidence" page. In essence, I would like to resolve the debate as to whether the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations can be discussed in any way on this page or not. There are two possible routes, RfC WP:RfC, and RfM WP:RfM. A request for mediation stipulates that "Mediation cannot take place if all parties are not willing to take part." Are you willing to take part in a RfM debate? And would you be willing to abide by the outcome? Lunokhod 11:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to take part, if this is done in good faith. By the way, I am not opposed to them being discussed at all, I am opposed to the evidence being framed centrally within the hoax notion. Gravitor 16:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to question on my talk page

I haven't thought about it much the past couple of days -- I have been busy at work and home, and wanted to give it proper consideration. Saturday I should be able to respond in detail. -- ArglebargleIV 17:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Block

Hi Gravitor, I blocked you for 24 hours for 3RR violation on Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Please take this time off to review our WP:3RR policy, and perhaps some of our other rules. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me, or any other admin by email. Thanks, Crum375 20:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is regretable that you are not looking into the source of this, which is a sockpuppet user / pair of users who are attempting to provoke revert wars by reverting without comment on the talk page. The user was even caught admitting this:

"Regreatably, given the tag-team, no discussion revert war behavior exhibited" Numskll 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)"

I fed this troll, which I should not have done, but I am astonished that this user can express regret that their attempt to provoke an edit was did not work and get away with it. Gravitor 18:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Gravitor, you're simply misreading something I said on User:Wahkeenah's talk page. It seems purposeful as you made the same claim on the disputed article talk page and were corrected. I can only guess why you think such a demonstrably false interpretation can be persuasive. Numskll 21:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it is possible to misinterpret "Regreatably, given the tag-team, no discussion revert war behavior exhibited" as anything but your regret that a revert war did not happen. You consistently troll and revert war, and I am asking you to desist. Gravitor 23:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Here, let me parse it out for you:I regret that because Gravitor and Carfiend's behavior consists of acting in tandem (in the manner of meat or sock puppets), refuse to discuss disputed content on the talk page, and continally provoke revert wars that some administrative intervention is likely required. Is it clear now? Numskll 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that that is not what you said. Your dishonesty and trolling is evident in your behavior (revert warring without using the talk page) and your words (saying that you regret that a revert war was not caused. Please do not post on my talk page any more. Gravitor 01:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Moon Hoax accusers

I replaced the section in the article as I proposed on the talk page, and have just noticed that in doing so I may have lost some info you'd entered yesterday. I apologise for that. Can you have a quick read at what I've put in - I think everything we need is still there. If I have lost something, can you see first if it would fit better in the dedicated bio page rather than on the main page, as I believe it's in the interests of the article to keep it to the point, with the detail in the sub article. Thanks! LeeG 18:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Gravitor)

- Hello, Gravitor. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gravitor%20{{{2}}}]], where you may want to participate. Gavitor -- Lunokhod 13:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by using sockpuppets to violate the 3RR and double vote on AfDs; see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Carfiend. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I appear to have been blocked for disagreeing with a determined group of witch-finders, against solid evidence that I am not a sockpuppet. The fact that another user has apparently been similarly outraged by the POV-pushing of this small, determined group is not surprising. Please reconsider this extraordinary lynching. The group / user concerned has already taken the opportunity to revert to his preferred POV (his aim in all of this), now that he has succeeded in getting the users who oppose him blocked. He has succeeded in basically making it possible to ban anyone who disagrees with him on this page, since anyone doing that is apparently blocked as a sockpuppet of another user, simply for sharing the same view.

Decline reason:

Unblock requests that contain personal attacks against other users are not considered. — Sandstein 07:18, 14 April 2007 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocked for truth seeking!

This user should be unblocked because we should never tolerate censorship 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)