User talk:Ripleysnow
Welcome[edit]
|
February 2016[edit]
Your recent edits to Talk:Milton William Cooper could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Ripleysnow: In addition, you may want to study Wikipedia's rules.
- Also, you seemed to be under the mistaken impression that a reference in a source to an allegation about Cooper and the KKK might be a "libel" of Cooper. If you read the article more carefully, you will see that Cooper died many years ago. Libel is a form of defamation. In American law, there is generally no such thing as an actionable defamation of a dead person. Please leave the lawyering to the lawyers. Famspear (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
A summary of some important site policies and guidelines[edit]
- "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
- We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
- Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
- Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
- We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.
Also, in response to your edit to Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories:
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Ian.thomson (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Acroterion (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Resistance[edit]
I responded to your note and hope it might become a conversation at User talk:JasonCarswell#Resistance. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Reading your posts, and we are cut from the same cloth buddy. I'm in agreement with everything I've read so far. Maybe we can lighten the burden if we work together. I'd like to make a difference in this world. Ripleysnow (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Reverted edit on page Generation[edit]
I reverted your edit claiming that "generation Alpha will not be 2 billions that makes no sense".
Only time will tell whether this will actually be the case, but this estimate is certainly of the right order of magnitude. Indeed, (1) currently, 26% of the world population is less than 14 years old and (2) the world population is projected to be around 8 billions in 2025. Moreover, the estimate was backed by an acceptable reference.
Whether this fact is relevant in the article is another matter (I, for one, think it is), but the reason you stated for removing it is invalid, which is why I reverted your edit.