Thrutheseasons
|
Edit summary edit
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Ron Brown edit
Wikipedia is no a forum for exposing truths that are being silenced. Please read WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SOAP, and WP:BLP (regarding unsourced libel of the Clintons), among other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you have information to add to the article, please supply reliable sources. If you have a dispute, discuss it on the talk page for the article rather than repeatedly re-adding your text. Also, if you do make changes, please do not undo people's typo corrections and category changes in the process. Thanks. —KCinDC (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I read everything you asked me to read. In no way have I violated policy. All of the sources have been published or filmed. What you are saying is that there is no place for truth on this site which is not the official government version. I will put my published and filmed sources against anyone's. Never have I put out anything that was not true. I never stated that anybody did anything. I was presenting information that is true that anybody else can connect the dots on. Circumstances must be reported. I'm sorry that they seem to implicate people, but the facts are the facts. Thrutheseasons
- Your sources are not reliable by Wikipedia standards, and you are violating policies and guidelines. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your information may or may not be true, but your assertion that it is, or some website's assertion that it is, is not sufficient for it to be included in Wikipedia. As it says in the verifiability policy, extraordinary claims require more, not less, attention to the reliability of the sources. If your information starts appearing in reliable sources, then it can be included in Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is not a tool for publishing original research or attempting to propagate unusual views into the mainstream. —KCinDC (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
KCinDC, What is unreliable about Newsweek or The New York Times or The San Jose Mercury News or the testimony of people who used to work for the CIA. How are you going to say that these sources are unreliable. The Wallstreet Underground was a very respected journal that published its version of events and was never once sued for libel in the publication of this story. I ask you what is wrong with my sources and you say things like, "It was decided." You are either not doing your job of researching the information which I was busy filling with more reliable information when I got this reaction. How much time have you bothered to research this? Have you bothered to look up the name Gary Webb or Bobby Seal? The facts are facts and cannot be objectively proven to be negative. There are falsehoods in the version you have published and it is outrageous. Shelly Kelly did not die in the accident. Thrutheseasons
- Since Newsweek and The New York Times and The San Jose Mercury News aren't making any of the allegations you're making in the article, they're not relevant. You can't make an extraordinary claim and then add some detail connected to it that's mentioned in a reliable source (which doesn't mention the claim) and then say that the claim is supported by the source. Gary Webb and Bobby are irrelevant to this article unless you have some reliable source connecting them to Ron Brown. The article mentions Shelley Kelley now but that needs a source, and in any case even before that it didn't say she died in the crash but that she was killed in the crash. Going into detail about Kelley's death would be inappropriate since it has nothing to do with Ron Brown. If the subject of an article died in a plane crash, we don't give extensive lists of what happened to every passenger. I understand that you're frustrated about not being able to use Wikipedia to publicize what you view as the truth, but that's just not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia doesn't compile information from primary sources and assemble facts to make an argument (see WP:OR). You'll need to find another site for that. —KCinDC (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- WP:VERIFY - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". You have clearly violated policy, see als WP:BLP, and WP:RS. Mazur's book, for instance, is self-published and cannot be used as a source, particularly for something controversial about living people. The whatreallyhappened site doesn't qualify as a reliable source (again, read WP:RS) either. Please stop as you are heading for a block if you keep reverting to your version. Doug Weller (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing unverifiable that I presented. You give me one fact that I put out there that you or I can't verify in minutes from reliable sources. To say anything else is an untruth. Thrutheseasons
- People have already explained that the sources you've cited are not reliable according to Wikipedia's policies. You're not going to get people to rewrite the rules of Wikipedia so that you can get out what you view as a truth that's being silenced. That's not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia reflects what's published in reliable sources. It does not break new ground. —KCinDC (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to carry on an endless conversation about Ron Brown's death. I think I and others have explained how Wikipedia works and the importance of reliable sources, but I think you may need to read those policies and guidelines again, especially WP:OR. Please keep the discussion here rather than spreading some of it over to my talk page, which makes it hard to follow. Your example of the shredding of documents is precisely what I was talking about when I mentioned details that may be in reliable sources but have no connection. What does the shredding have to do with Ron Brown? Nothing, without including speculation from unreliable sources. Assembling disconnected bits of information to present a case for your story of the death is original research, and it's a violation of Wikipedia policies. You would have to have a reliable source making the argument. All sorts of things may be true — certainly all sorts of things are believed to be true by someone somewhere — but that doesn't mean they go into a Wikipedia article. —KCinDC (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
September 2008 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ron Brown (U.S. politician), did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please read WP:BLP - and WP:RS Doug Weller (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit you made to Ron Brown (U.S. politician) has been reverted, as it introduced unsourced or poorly sourced negative or controversial biographical material. Please do not continue to add such information. Thank you.
You are absolutely wrong. Facts by definition cannot be negative. Negativity is a matter of subjectivity. You cannot prove negativity in the article when all facts are true. The truth is always the best defense against defamation and I have not provided any information which is defamatory. I suggest you do your own research and come to your own conclusion. The coroner's report said she died from injuries three hours after her other injuries. You are putting up false information by saying everybody was killed in the crash. I can get you the articles from established sources magazines, video. What is your problem. Bill, is that you? Vince Foster's files were shredded; that is a fact. Stop acting like Big Brother and stop trying to erase history. The air traffic controller was mysteriously killed several days later which corresponds with the allegations of the death of Ron Brown story as was published by the respected journal, Wall Street Underground. There is currently a sandbox article about Nicholas A. Guarino. Look it up. You guys are assuming and silencing information rather than providing the service of providing it. They have the photos of the x-rays and expert testimony. Thank God somebody took photos of the X-rays because they disappeared as well. In no way have I libeled anybody. Anybody in politics needs to be able to stand it. The truth is that the Clinton administration was scandal plagued and many people very close to them died under mysterious circumstances. That is the truth. The truth cannot always be positive. Why put out anything at all when what you are putting up is not true. That would make all of the criticism of wikipedia valid if you silence the truth and put out falsehoods. That is what you are doing. Not everybody died in the flight. It was published in a real newspaper. Put the truth out there and let other people connect the dots. The Clintons are currently being sued. Look up Paul vs. Clinton and you will find the same kind of behavior that is implicated by these facts in this article which is well referenced. Due to the evidence in the case, which you can look up if you weren't so lazy, you will find that they have already been fined 40,000 dollars for fraud. They were desperate to make it to the presidency to avoid charges. If anything happens to Barrack Obama, I want you to feel in part responsible for helping to silence the truth and to shut down information before examining the sources.Thrutheseasons
Your recent edits edit
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
"citation needed" edit
If you want to tag something as needing a citation, please use {{cn}}. For the time being, I have removed most of the tags from United Airlines Flight 93 because most of the tagged sentences were cited in the body and uncontroversial (e.g. that the passengers made phone calls, that the flight turned towards D.C., that the passengers revolted, etc.). I converted the tags on the memorial and the Captiol being the target to the correct format. Note that I did this per our style guidelines for the lead, which do not override our policy on biographies of living people. --NYKevin @756, i.e. 17:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Kevin, we must raise the standards. Controversy is a matter of subjectivity. Polls have shown that almost everybody agrees that our government is corrupt and the media is controlled. Is that controversial? Why is questioning the media controversial? We should not be posting things that there is no evidence of. I am an expert on this subject about what is documented and what is not. It is impossible for the passengers to have caused the crash when the pieces of the plane were found over a ten mile distance. Most of the plane pieces should have been found in one place. These are things that are documented. If people are going to hold me to a high standard, I have the right to hold others to a high standard. I would like to see those citations for cross reference purposes for my own research. Taking down requests for citation only delegitimizes Wikipedia as a source and makes it less helpful for mankind. How else am I to get those citations, but to ask for the needed citations? I expect to have much resistance by posting a Senate Report that states that Rumsfeld and Cheney illegally threatened the 911 Commission and another Senate report stating that Rumsfeld gave orders to let Osama bin Laden escape. As a teacher, I would not except unsubstantiated statements in any paper. People need to know the evidence that explains how conclusions were made. Putting up citation needed is a very minor change that only will make Wikipedia a more accurate resource. Don't stop me. (Thrutheseasons (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC))
United 93 edit
I've reverted your edit, as you used "cc", which does nothing, when you would need to use {{cn}} to get "citation needed." Note that citations are not used in the lead paragraph(s), provided the items mentioned are covered and referenced in the supporting text below (which they are, as far as I see). See the edit summary that reverted your previous additions; "WP:LEADCITE; adequate citations are in the body (also, next time use the real {{cn}} instead of typing "(citation needed)"). Acroterion (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, please place cite requests in the body of the article where the citations would be expected. The lead paragraphs ar normally uncited, and are digests of the main portion of the article, which is supposed to be appropriately cited. Please remember that these templates are intended to address genuine problems with citation, not to make a point of disagreement about article content. Please read the entire article and its references before placing cite tags. It makes work for other editors to go find the appropriate locations for any necessary citations down in the main article. Acroterion (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The intro makes exceptional specific statements with no facts. What is known is the plane crashed or was shot down. The jury is still out about this one. The voice recordings, as far as I know, have never been released. This article is terrible and needs much work.(Thrutheseasons (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC))
- The introduction is the summary of the article. The main body of the article deals with the issues. Therefore, the article body is the place to look for things that need correction. That said, the article is a featured article and has been extensively vetted. You appear to be promoting your own theories and causes through the cite requests, which is not an appropriate way to change things. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for righting great wrongs, the encyclopedia by definition deals primarily with mainstream concepts. The article reflects what is known and stated through a preponderance of reliable sources. There is an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories that goes into greater detail on alternative perspectives on 9/11. Acroterion (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)