Lukefortune
November 2007
editClearly this is another example of abuses by you mediators, and will go reported.
First you delete my posts, without explanation Then you antagonize my assistant, who is no longer allowed to deal with this issue You refuse to answer my questions You level false accusations You try to change my password in an apparent attempt to prevent my ability to log in And now this accusation!
You are unbelievable!
- Deleted your posts? You should know, that all these things you are talking about, can be counter checked via my contributions. And you surely know, that I can see what you did with my comment concerning sock puppets? this Why didn't you leave every comment in place. This would have been easier to read and wouldn't have caused so much confusion to you :-) User Doe ☻T ☼C 00:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
--- I have left a reply on one of your sock puppet's talk page. User Doe ☻T ☼C 22:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
UserDoe:
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about, but by the apparently hostile tone, I suspect it
to be a violation of wikipedia's policies.
Also, I cannot comply with the requests you made in your abusive previous remark referencing Billy Meier. Unlike Mr. Meier, I am not making claims of alien contact, or any claim of my own for that matter. I am reporting the verified claims of inventors who passed the tests of patent examiners.
"It doesn't make it right just because a patent for whatever does exist. Let's say there's a patent for a flying slate. Based on that, would you claim that Santa Clause does indeed exist?"
You are being completely irrational and abusive. Santa Claus? Do you know what a patent is?
" If you want your information to be included you have to do two things: Find another (reliable and acceptable) source (which you did not create by yourself) to support your claim."
More acceptable or reliable than the patent office? You clearly have no idea how this works, do you? There is no higher authority of fact when it comes to inventions!
"Second: Write it in a way which does not make it look like it is biased. For example: Do not use the word "every" or "many". Rather use the word "some"."
I will not voluntarily lie and distort the truth to the wikipedia readers because you ask me to.
"Unless it is not a scientific fact (not the research and opinion of one single man),"
My books are not the research of one man; they are a 100 year compilation of the science and works of over 200 inventor/researcher/patent holders.
"you can not claim that all this is indeed the truth."
In my books, I do not make claims, I report the success of accomplished inventors.
"You may say that one man says or claims that this and that is the case, but do not state that it's a fact. Just like Mr. Billy Meier couldn't come to Wikipedia and write that all of his claims are proven facts."
ONE MORE TIME, I am not making any claims. I am reporting the facts as verified through the patent office. An inventor cannot receive a patent unless his claims are a fact.
Now, please restore my postings as originally listed.
Thank you,
```lukefortune
- No, I will not restore your edits. They are against Wikipedia's policies (which I have already listed here). If there is no other reliable source, other than the one you've created yourself, for your statements, then you can not add them. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your books or your opinion.
This is not about patents, this is about POV and promotion of material you have created yourself. There is no consensus for adding your own research or material to the article. All you have to do is to find a reliable second source. I have told you about Wikipedia's policies, I have told you not to vandalize the article by blanking the page or replacing it. Now please have a look at WP:SPS
Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[5]
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources.
Articles and posts on Wikipedia should never be used as third-party sources.
As far as I can see, you are not an expert yourself. You are only reporting about patents owned by other "experts". I will now go to the talk page of the article and open a poll for editors, so Wikipedia editors can decide whether or not your material can be added. We need to find consensus, one way or the other. During the poll, please do not add your statements again. User Doe ☻T ☼C 23:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
---
UserDoe:
In a nutshell, clearly you do not understand what a "compilation" is, or how it is defined in Patent Law. Your cited references only back my assertions, they do not support yours. There are 250 different authoritative sources that are being directly cited in my referenced work.
Your first authority [WP:SELFPUB]] does not preclude ALL works that you may designate as self-published.
"They may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the
topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable
third-party publications"
Try 250+ experts.
Second Authority [WP:SPS]: I do not claim to be an expert. I never have. I am a researcher who
has amassed proof recorded under the highest levels of scrutiny by patent examiners. Do you know
what a patent is? I have been writing under the assumption that every person understands the
concept and legal ramifications of patents, but I can slow down for you and fill you in if
necessary. I am not making claims about third parties. I am directly listing the words
and claims of the inventors and their attorneys themselves. It is entirely related to the
subject matter in this article.
Third Authority [WP:OR]:
" 'Original research' is a claim for which no reliable source can be found." Patents go
well and beyond theory and research. Research is trying to figure out how something works;
a patent is an explanation from an inventor who is stating for the record how his successful
invention operates and can be replicated. It is well beyond the "research" phase. Now add
the fact that the patent has lapsed into the public domain. It is, by law, COMMON KNOWLEDGE.
Fourth authority [WP:PSTS] My books are an encyclopedia set. A "tertiary source."
Encyclopedia sets are known as "compilations" in patent law, by the way.
You cite over 100 examples of authority like my books in your reference section of this article,
and are therefore showing prejudice and discrimination by exclusion. Perhaps you should consider
escalating this to whatever legal advisor wikipedia has before you get wikipedia into any more
trouble for capricious discriminatory practices.
I honestly do not understand what you find so terrifying about the fact that mankind possesses
UFO technology. Please restore my posts, as repeatedly asked for.
````lukefortune
UserDoe:
Please be more specific about your allegations. The only neutrality violation I see is from you and your moderator Jflav. My position is substantiated by wikipedia's verifiability policy. My position about man-made UFO's is easily verified by the 250 patents made in the last 100 years that are documented in my books. All photos, videos, film clips... CAN be explained by patents issued that are now public domain. Would you like to see some for yourself? Provide me an email and I will happily provide you with a patent in pdf file that explains any, repeat ANY ufo sighting or recording that you offer. I am not saying this to enflame argument. I am saying this because humanity possesses this technology as a solid fact. It requires a speed of 17,000+ mph to get into low earth orbit by conventional rocketry. Plasma propulsion 60 times more powerful than rocketry was patented in the 1950's. Do the math.
I am not telling you that you are wrong to believe in aliens. I am saying that you are not being neutral. I have no position on the UFO phenomenon and aliens. My books answer the question "Does man possess UFO technology?" And the answer is a resounding YES. You are clearly biased in your beliefs when you refuse to include an alternate view in this forum that is substantiated by facts. Patents are not granted in this country for theoretical designs. Working models have to be presented to the patent examiners, or else no patent is granted. These are proof from the government (the patent office IS a govt agency) about saucer shaped or cigar shaped flying craft tha have apparently "unearthly" characteristics. The only conspiracy to conceal the truth is coming from you and your partner JFlav in suppressing my posts.
If you still feel that my posting is somehow not neutral, then please reword the phrasology of the offending sentence in the post as a proposed mutually agreable solution. I would be interested to see what you perceive as neutral.
regards ````lukefortune
- WP:RS says the following about self published sources:
Self-published sources
Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. They may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, but such use is discouraged; see WP:SPS for details. Self-published sources should never be used as sources for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable statements about living persons other than their author; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other wikis should never be used as third-party sources. Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, but only under certain conditions; see WP:SELFPUB for the details.
WP:SELFPUB says the following:
Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
* it is relevant to their notability; * it is not contentious; * it is not unduly self-serving; * it does not involve claims about third parties; * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; * the article is not based primarily on such sources.
WP:SPS says the following:
Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[5]
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources.
Articles and posts on Wikipedia should never be used as third-party sources.
WP:OR says the following:
Reliable sources
Main articles: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources
Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is a claim for which no reliable source can be found. Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken in context is the only way to disprove an assertion that a claim constitutes original research. If there is a source, but the source or claim is disputed, that is not original research but rather of a question of reliable sourcing or undue weight. However, using information from references out-of-context or to forward claims not directly supported by the sources is original research.
In general, the most reliable sources are books, journals and other periodicals published by university presses or reputable publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see Wikipedia:Verifiability for exceptions.
Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources The following section's wording or inclusion in this policy or guideline is being reviewed for consensus, and may be controversial. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.
Policy shortcut: WP:PSTS
Sources may be divided into three basic categories[1]:
* A primary source is a document or person very close to the situation being written about. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. To the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should o only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and o make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, unless such claims are verifiable from another source.
* A secondary source draws on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims.
* A tertiary source is a publication such as an encyclopedia or other compendium that sums up other secondary sources and primary sources. Many introductory textbooks may also be considered tertiary to the extent they sum up widely accepted results of large amounts of primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in a general or specialized encyclopedia can be regarded as reliable sources.
Like primary sources, secondary and tertiary sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not verifiable from either the sources themselves or from other sources.
So in a nutshell: You can't use your own website (or other own sources) as a resource for your claims. It doesn't make it right just because a patent for whatever does exist. Let's say there's a patent for a flying slate. Based on that, would you claim that Santa Clause does indeed exist? If you want your information to be included you have to do two things: Find another (reliable and acceptable) source (which you did not create by yourself) to support your claim. Second: Write it in a way which does not make it look like it is biased. For example: Do not use the word "every" or "many". Rather use the word "some". Unless it is not a scientific fact (not the research and opinion of one single man), you can not claim that all this is indeed the truth. You may say that one man says or claims that this and that is the case, but do not state that it's a fact. Just like Mr. Billy Meier couldn't come to Wikipedia and write that all of his claims are proven facts. (For example) Regards User Doe ☻T ☼C 21:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Unidentified flying object. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. UserDoe 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)