User talk:I-netfreedOm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. 131.215.159.218 (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I just reported you for your vandalism. And just so you don't think you are the only vandal I've fought: Caltech assigns IPs dynamically, so you have no way to figure out just what I've been editing, but I have done a lot of cleanup on Wikipedia. You are just another zealot who mistakes 'neutral-point-of-view' and 'respect for the scientific consensus' for 'my point of view' and 'whatever I want to say'. 131.215.220.165 (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 24 hours for disrupting the encyclopedia. You are unable to provide reliable sources for matters that you state as if they were fact, yet revert edits which do acknowledge the subjects claims. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and you will need to provide better references than you have to establish the validity of the claims. Please continue your discussion on the article talkpage, once the block expires, and refrain from including the claims as fact unless you establish a consensus to do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note on my talkpage. I would advise you that I do not share your interpretation of what a reliable source is; Wikipedia states that a reliable source should be an independent third party, with a proven history of impartial reporting. The website of the organisation which is related to the article subject is neither independent, a third party, nor inherently impartial. I note that the sources for both the recent sections you have added to the article are related to Stephen M. Greer - and thus they do not qualify as reliable sources. Moreover, you are stating claims made by these organisations or Mr Greer as fact whereas there has been no evidence provided even by the claimants, who are given on relying on testimony provided by other individuals who also are unable to provide independent evidence.
- I would suggest that you include the claims by Mr Greer, and the Orion Project, only as statements made by the parties concerned and not represent them as proof or evidence of those claims. Unless you are able to edit to that standard, or provide reliable third party sources which substantiate the claims, I would comment that you will likely be further sanctioned for disrupting the encyclopedia by violation of WP:SOAP and WP:RS. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- No. Testimony is not enough. This is an encyclopedia, not a court or debating society, and we need independent references that can be verified. At the moment we can only verify that people have claimed such and such, but cannot verify the claims made. Thus we should only mention in the article that the claims are made, and what they are - the encyclopedia cannot comment on the truth of the claim. This is standard on all articles. As for conspiracy... that itself is only a claim, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You ask why I edit anonymously: it is to prevent people like you from pestering me continuously with claims of perpetual motion, UFOs, and even worse nonsense. I have a job to do. If you think I'm in an ivory tower, it is because I filter out your bull. I know a couple of other Caltechers who have established accounts and addressed claims like yours in detail. See User:Michaelbusch and User:Philosophus. 131.215.64.195 (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Stop trying to Wikilobby for support for your editing. And attacking me doesn't help you. 131.215.64.195 (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove AfD notices from article pages, as you did here. This does not prevent the deletion discussion from taking place. Its only result is to prevent readers of the article from being notified that a discussion is underway. If you have any questions, please ask on my Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
