User talk:Caesarjbsquitti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thanks for the messages...

Dear Caesarjbsquitti,

Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator.

One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with two hyphens followed by four tildes --~~~~. The software that runs Wikipedia will automatically convert this into a signature which contains your username and the date and time you posted the message, so other users don't get confused.

I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself on your userpage, you should start by adding {{User:PEAR/welcomed}} to your userpage.

--PEAR 16:31, August 14th 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...for the welcome, I hope that I may be able to lend my abilities to your source. Have some patience with my lack of understanding your system.

Thanks again.

"The new truth about truth lies in the truth that Truth can lie ! CS"

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] signing

Hi! Just FYI, you should sign the edits you make to discussion ("talk") pages, but not the edits you make to actual articles. Rlitwin 22:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit at Canada

For your convenience, I am pasting your addition to Canada below. It doesn't belong in the top-level Canada article, but it may belong at Health care in Canada after some polishing. Thanks. Jkelly 22:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Health Care system

Canada's Health care system has been called a public system, a socilized heath care system but in fact it is merely pulically funded, although many politicians and reports refer incorrectly to this system as a public one. ( this a good example of a half-truth - half-truth)

It was a very famous socialist politician Tommy Douglas the son of a preacher who instituted government funded health care.

Canadians receive 'free' health care paid for by a provincially funded tax supported fund. Some provinces employ a monthly insurance premium, Ontario does not. Some limited services are not covered.

Most doctors are in reality 'corporations' and clinics are privately owmed by doctor consortiums. Doctors, family doctors receive a fee per visit from the Government. A system that rewards repeat visits, referrals, and testing. Doctors in Canada, except for some hospital doctors do not receive a yearly salary.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons is a self regulating department that handles physician complaints.

Canadians are currently experiencing a doctor shortage due to the market forces at play and the fee structure, that penalizes doctors income relative to the supply of doctors.

A recent comparative report on Health Systems in the World, 'Wyatt/Watson' ranked Canada's Health system 20th in the world, better than that in the USA, ranked 24th. France and Italy were ranked in the top two.

[edit] Feedback

Feel free to send me suggestions.

Thanks

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Mathematical definition of God? Have you seen intelligent math? — Dunc|☺ 16:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "No original research" policy

Caesar, based on edits you've been making concerning your insights about truth, lie, and half-truth, I think you should really read the Wikipedia No Original Research policy. Edits based on your own ideas are really not acceptable and will be deleted (unless you've had them published in reliable publications that you can reference). Rlitwin 13:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionary

As a matter of policy, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As you know, the Wikimedia project already has a dictionary, Wiktionary. Gazpacho 22:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USENET

I sympathise with your frustration at not being able to communicate your message to the world, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. If you are unable to have your ideas published in academic papers, or popular magazines, you may like to consider USENET.

USENET is easily available through Google Groups. While Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia that anyone can edit, USENET is an on-line news and discussion system that anyone can post to. Material posted to USENET is archived by Google and, once archived, no-one can delete your words.

Be warned however, USENET is a threaded discussion format. People can post replies to your article, question your ideas and attack you personally. If you post your ideas to USENET be prepared to defend them because they will be mercilessly attacked.

It is also important to choose an appropriate newsgroup in which to post your ideas. If you choose the wrong newsgroup your ideas will either be ignored, or replies will ignore the ideas and criticise your poor choice of newsgroup. Think of it as a news stand of magazines, each with their own target audience. An article about bodybuilding techniques would not look right in a magazine about crochet and knitting. Your ideas would not be well received in rec.aquaria, but they may be better received in alt.philosophy.

I also suggest you take time to read some of the articles in your chosen newsgroup, preferably for a week or so, before posting an article of your own. This will allow you to get a feel for the style of the newsgroup, and the kind of responses you might evoke. USENET is not for everyone, but it may be the publishing media you have been looking for. --Dave 09:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info...

You might consider a page, about discoveries that no one realy wants to print...conflict of intersts...but that would benefit people...cancer cures, etc...

[edit] IBS

Hi Caesarjbsquitti,

You posted the message below on Talk:Irritable bowel syndrome. However, you don't make any suggestions about the article, so I think you're violating Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Please use talk pages to discuss the making of articles. Also, please sign your name. Feel free to add to the article itself.

grtz,

--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 14:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted again. Please discuss, I have no intention to get into an edit war. Also, trie to add new comments at the bottom of a talk page, or better yet use the " + "-tab to automatically add a comment.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Talk) 11:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overlooked cause: Bacteria

While the logic of the symptoms suggest a 'infection' of some sorts, it becomes clear that IBS, and Crohns will follow the history of ulcers.

BACTERIA MAY BE THE CAUSE OF IBS

My suggestion look up herbal cures for parasites.

If a corporation who is concerned about bottom line profits is willing to sell you cigarettes that will kill you, do you not think a corporation who is concerned about bottom line profits is willing to sell you tests, and superficial treatments that help but not cure you from a disease that creates the demand for their tests, and superficial treatments ?

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Petralia

I moved your article to George Petralia. Please don't keep recreating it under the name How to create an article. Thanks, NawlinWiki 05:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally read your message....excuse the slip up, too late, too tired. Thanks !

[edit] License tagging for Image:Roy Piovesana.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Roy Piovesana.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don Grashey

Can you please add the year of his death, not just his age? Thanks.

[edit] Image:Roy_Piovesana.JPG listed for deletion

[edit] Comments on Talk:Devil

I've removed your comments from Talk:Devil. Again, Wikipedia is not a forum to promote your original research. I suggest you may want to publish your findings in reputable magazines or peer-reviewed journals, or set up a website and (when it becomes notable) later others will link it appropriately in articles. Until then, please help contribute to improving the factual information on articles here. -- Kesh 04:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello anyone else here ?

I seem to have made quite a few changes without a comment...is anyone else here ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preview

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --Geniac 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Regrets on that one...sometimes I forget...as I just did...

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, I know...use the sandbox...

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 00:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About some of your edits

Hello Caesarjbsquitti,

Since you asked for comments on the talk page of half-truths, I will do my best to give you some that, I hope, might be helpful. Note that I am not the editor who removed your recent additions to that page, calling them a "peeve", even though I probably would have done so if I had seen them first (though I would have tried to use a less harsh language).

Firstly, your example about Galilleo going through hell to prove his point is of course correct, but it does not apply to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about proving one's point or giving opinions, however well founded and in good faith. If something has not been published by a reputable source, it should not be on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia had existed in Galilleo's days, his new research, however well founded, would not have been welcome here. Anything for which you cannot find a reliable source, anything that is an opinion, whether yours or someone else's, should be kept out of Wikipedia articles (except if you clearly state who thinks so, and, again, provide a source). Personal experiences, original research and thoughts are of course totally forbidden and will be reverted.

My book, 'The Jesus Christ Code' has not yet been published, and as of yet, many sources are unwilling to print the material, poltiical. I am certain the GAlilleo, also could not find someone to print his material, except himself, and he was taken to task by the 'authorities' of the day.

+++++++++++++

There are different types of opinion. A fact, ie Canada's political system uses two types of electing people, first is uses a first past the post system during the general election, and it uses a multiple run off system for electing party leaders. That is not merely an opinion, that is a fact that is seldom if ever detailed as such. It is my 'original research', yes but more than that.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++

About providing sources: not everything that's on the internet counts as a reliable source. The most obvious examples of sources that should not be used are blogs, user-edited sites such as Wiktionary, and promotional websites. For more information about providing reliable sources, you may want to read Wikipedia:Citing sources.

++++++++++

I have just finished changing the material for Loretta Lynn her movie and book are false, or shall we say full of half-truths, or errors of omission.

Sicilian Wood Carver

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

++++++++++

Last but not least, all edits much reflect a neutral point of view, but I trust that you were aware of that.

The examples provided in the half-thruths article therefore violated WP:NOR, as no source could be provided that said "[...] is a half-truth". The ones that you added later, about Canadian politics and such were unnecessarily divisive and controversial, as well as being original research and possible biased, and definitely unverifiable as half-truths.

++++++++++++++++++++

If you see an animal and conclude it is a dear, that is 'your opinion', your research, is it true ?

The Canadian Political system or medical system are full of half-truths, problem is that all people except myself really know what they are. So where is the publications ?

Well you see, medias' have been corrupted for many years, and they do not want to disclose this. Their ability to maintain the decpetion is based on their political ability to control the media forces. Not a conspiracy, merely politics.

Tricky part...

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

++++++++++

I am sure that you have much knowledge and insight to share, however Wikipedia is not the place to do so. Only well-established, published facts belong here, whereas opinions, personal research and beliefs belong to blogs. Remember, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (from WP:V).

I hope that these comments will be helpful to you, and that you will keep them in mind when editing. Regards, IronChris | (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

++++++++++++++

It becomes obvious to me that 'the system' can easily be corrupted by those 'that print' research with ulterior motives....ie the cigarette companies and their scientiests...

The sign on the Canadian US border, "IN ONTARIO Wife abuse is a crime" is a half-truth. Can you not understand this, is it research or is it findings that does not need scientific explanation.

I appreciate your feedback...The Jesus Christ Code....coming soon !

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Spousal abuse Noted on www.wikipedia.com, January 27th, 2007 "Spousal abuse is a specific form of domestic violence where physical or sexual abuse is perpetuated by one spouse upon another. The term was coined in the late 1970s once such crimes were given wider attention in society. There are separate legalities and punishments applied to such a crime as opposed to random assault or assaults of another nature (see battered woman defence and battered person syndrome)." Here the corruption of a topic is noted by the manipulation of abuse. Abuse is NOT a specific type fo domestic violence. Here the heading has been corrupted to attack men, because the material is used to highlight statistical manipuation fo violence by men against women, which is only one type of abuse.^[1]

[edit] On half-truths andwholesale WP:OR

Although numerous people have already pointed this out, let me remind you that publishing your own refutation of a source or another Wikipedia article is the very definition of original research and does not belong in Wikipedia articles. Frankly, I'm glad that you think critically about your sources, but if you continue to put your analysis in articles, it will continue to be deleted and you and other editors will get increasingly frustrated with the situation. Please just stop doing this. The best outcome for all would be for you to continue to contribute to WP by inserting information from reliable sources into articles, but discussing your opinions on such sources in a blog or your own website. Cheers, JChap2007 23:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images.

What types of licensing are acceptable for images.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Carroll Baker Petralia Grasley.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Carroll Baker Petralia Grasley.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Durin 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• You removed the no source tag on the image without providing a source. Please do not remove this tag without providing a source. Thank you, --Durin 16:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Did i not provide the source...George Petralia ? Technical problem ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:2004tbonlinegregzelinskimayor.JPG

[edit] AfD nomination of Rita Ubriaco

An editor has nominated Rita Ubriaco, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rita Ubriaco and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Child Abuse page

I have reverted the edits you put on the first section of the Child Abuse page as I did not feel they added anything to the text, they were unsubstantiated in regards to the Childrens Aid Society (and even if you can substantiate claims that they have been involved in abuse that information could perhaps go in the Notable Instances of Child Abuse section, not in the introductory paragraph) and did not seem to be NPOV. edchant 04:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the incidents are well referenced, if you would like to move them to an appropriate section, please do. (if I have time I will try myself) But it is not appropriate to merely isolate 'adults', ignoring all the other 'sources' of abuse.

Thanks.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted you again, unfortunately before I saw this discussion. However, I side with Edchant; even if you can argue that there is some substance, this belongs nowhere near the first sentence of the article. Please feel free to add it somewhere appropriate. Clayboy 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, and make the following adjustment...less is more sometimes....

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)