Greetings, Wikipedians. I bring this issue to the cafe because, after several reversals and messages in the discussion of the article, I have no more options to prevent what the user Antonio1979 (talk contr. Bloq.) Being perpetrated in this article. State: the user’s ion published in the March 11 attacks in 2004 is this, and anyone who reads it is clear that all this writing, besides having been denied by the judicial and police institutions, is part of the information with which junk media as “The World” and “Digital Freedom” are intended to communicate to the population base of repeat endlessly. In fact, along with fondodocumental.com (paginita another style) are the only “sources” it provides. The issue has been debated for months in the discussion of the article, so much so that there is a huge string of files in the same discussion.For some time, the article seemed quite calm, but this user seems to have entered with “renewed vigor.” Ignoring the miles of previous discussions, is determined to raise her without admitting text amendment. The quoted text violates at least the policies WP: NPOV, WP: VER and WP: NSW, since, in addition to telling the truth, seek to make Wikipedia a spokeswoman for a media that have long been discred for reporting this issue. Therefore, I urge you to exercise the necessary administrative action to prevent this article being used for political purposes, as the user Antonio1979 (talk contr. Bloq.) Intends to do. Greetings, Hispa 23:28 10 dic 2006 (CET) would have found the “Conspirapedia”! The relationship between Conspirapedia and Wikipedia would end up being similar to that between the Caf and the section “Consultations” xD. Gaeddal 23:34 10 dic 2006 (CET) Well, I do not care. I think a topic not encyclopedic.Concrete, not encyclopedic because it is impossible to include it as an article neutral. Fortunately, the articles that create controversy are very few in proportion, but most are related to a fact after all political. If I say I do not care is because I know very few people who does not know the topic (which is already low) and want to know more, go to a free encyclopedia where as in all human site is also discussed. I will certainly commend the work of Wikipedia and all, but what is undeniable (and this is said by any professor of history) is that if neither historians agree to chronicle things short to medium term, will you please Wikipedians agree that use disparate sources, contaminated, politicized and inaccurate Come on. I’m with Hispa, to be somewhere else doing politics. This is an encyclopedia. Only out of respect for everyone I would expect a few years to chronicle. May form the Conspiropedia be the best solution … Oh, if it were not for the humor.But putting serious, I would make a template that said something like: “Today this item is impossible to history because of the different views that exist regarding the content offered objective, hopefully a few years. Sorry for the inconvenience” or something similar . Upstairs in bold are my reasons. I also believe that such a move would be very good for that Wikipedia is better and more reliable … end up with some vandalism, we would reduce the discussions and wars. So preposterous is it Opinions – Alonsorgaz 00:23 11 dic 2006 (CET) Well, I’ll take only half in jest, perhaps 9/11 conspiracy theories know. I think the article section is at issue does have a place on wikipedia, it is certainly something historic. If there is not that part of history, whether real or not these contradictions, we will be leaving something in the ink. I think here we can maintain the usual style seamlessly. Maybe, just such a medium have denounced this.Police states that other. This judge finds it beyond. This is the position of this party, and that of these other parties. If there is an international body should decide, as it also takes its verdict. And if scholars / historians still disagree about something, because too soon and all have political bias, because it puts a little box with a warning at the beginning of the article, period. – 4lex 09:38 11 dic 2006 (CET) Man, I if the template should be placed in the headers of the articles themselves look good, but I do not know if you mean that instead of the article, people were only that template. If the latter, I am against. I think one of the advantages of wikipedia has been to offer current information quality (see Coup in Thailand in 2006) and without needing to download updates or upgrade purchase volumes, as other encyclopedias.