User talk:Darkstar1st

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Paul A. Bonacci 2 Discovery Channel 3 Discovery Channel 4 Greetings 5 II 6 Source material 7 Three revert rule warning 8 vandalism 9 in flagrante delicto 10 Password

[edit] Paul A. Bonacci

Please stop re-inserting biased, unrelated, conspiracy-theory based POV material into this article. As stated in what Wikipedia is not, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: ... Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

Your material does not display a neutral point of view. It is basically a soapbox or cheering section for Bonacci, his attorney, and people who allege the existence of a conspiracy involving so-called satanic ritual abuse, mind control, etc. This is not appropriate for Wikipedia. MCB 17:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, that looks fine to me as far as this article goes, the name of the attorney definitely belongs in the article. However, apparently you have just moved the same biased, soapbox, POV material to an article on the attorney himself. That does not address the overall issue. This sort of material just does not belong on Wikipedia. MCB 20:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Update: another editor has discovered that the material from this article was copied from another site (which apparently copied it from a copyrighted article in a newspaper). Wikipedia cannot use copyrighted material; the material cannot remain in the article regardless of any other merits. Please see the Wikipedia copyright FAQ. MCB 00:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery Channel

You have added the bit about "conspiracy of silence" more than once. please note that it is currently listed as a see-also at the bottom. To essentially post the article in multiple places, including articles that aren't about that as such, is overkill. We're not cendoring you; we're keeping the information where it belongs. Anyone can click that link and look at it. Jacqui ^{★ 00:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}

I will copy the discussion on my talk page here to be sure you will see it.

[edit] Discovery Channel

"By the way, regarding the Censored section, I checked who contributed that and also what other things they had contrubuted, and they had mostly spammed other entries with the same paragraph (or similar). I'm going to take that one out now. If anyone comes by later who disagrees with the three of us so far, revert me and we'll talk more here. (Also, if we want to mention it in passing at some later point, we have the edit history to get it back) Jacqui ★" Did you write this?

and this:

"I'm not sure if I'm the Jacqui you're talking about, or if you mean someone else, but I've never seen most of those links in my life. In any case, the facts remain at Conspiracy of Silence, etc. THis is a page about the Discovery Channel, itself. Please respect that. There are see also links on this page, and that is one of them. Thanks. Jacqui ★"

I don't understand why you would call my contributions SPAM in one post, then deny reading the contributions in the next? Yes, you are the Jacqui to which my comments are directed, as well as the one that removed my post about censorship in the USA. This page is a living history of a company. The fact that a show that was listed in several guides, then pulled from the line-up under political pressure, belongs in this page. The actual show and its contents are less important than the fact it was censored. I don't think people will gather the Discovery Channel has been censored from your "see also" link. It is important for people to know when the Media has been compromised.

Oh. Now I get it. Yes. I am sorry that I used the verb "spammed"; it's imprecise, rude and not quite what I meant anyway. However, from your contributions when I checked it was apparent to me that the only contributions you'd made to Wikipedia were ones related to this topic. I hadn't seen half of the links you listed because at the time I had checked your contributions, they didn't exist (or at least, you hadn't edited them yet). Most of the others, I hadn't ever clicked on, because you made it clear from your edit history what you put in.

The article about the Discovery Channel is not the living history of the company, it's about the living history of the channel. Those are two different things. If you'd like to click on the link on the Discovery Channel page that indicates what company owns it, you are free to edit that article. I stand by my feelings regarding the see-also in the Discovery Channel article enough. I also think you will find that when you do edit the article about the company, they probably won't let you put in quite that much about Conspiracy of Silence there either, as there are limits to page sizes in Wikipedia. That's why Conspiracy of Silence should have its own pgae -- so it can say on that page what would not fit on the other pages.

Happy editing! Jacqui ^{★ 01:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}

Jacqui, you are prone to assumptions. You should have read my post before your statement. We may be splitting hairs on the Channel/Company issue, Wikipedia has bigger fish to fry. Limits to page size sounds like censorship to me, type is free on the Internet. The fact remains this debate is about an actual event on the channel. No matter how small your opinion of this documentary, it still has a significant role in the history of a major media outlet, the Discovery Channel, as the only advertised show to be canceled. As MCB has stated, legal departments screen all content(I might add the show was cleared to be aired), in addition, this takes place well before the TV guide is published and distributed.

Darkstar, you too are prone to assumptions. You have assumed that "type is free on the Internet" when we have a policy here at Wikipedia about size of articles. You also have assumed that my opinion of this documentary is "small." Please source all claims from now on... Jacqui ^{★ 22:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}

Jacqui M Schedler, My only assumption is that you will debate the smallest points. Like the Discovery Channel/discovery Channel Business debate, once again we appear to be spliting hairs. My exact words were, "no matter how small", and for the last time my source is the TV GUIDE, get a copy for yourself and drop it.

Sorry, as a Wikipedian, it's my job to debate things to make sure we have the most factually-accurate, and also the best, article. It has to do with the pride I have for this place. It's nothing you need to take personally. And when I said source your claims in this specific instance, I meant regarding the things you were saying about me. Sorry if I wasn't clear. It's not splitting hairs to expect my views on something to be factually represented instead of twisted. (Though it's true that you need to source everything else you write on Wikipedia too, as does everybody.)

I'm going to give you some space for a while, because you seem kind of stressed out, and honestly I am too. I don't want to go on the offense with you or create an environment where it's hard for you to work on things here. So happy editing. Jacqui ^{★ 04:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)}

Jacqui, you lost me on sourcing things I say about you, I am the source??? Which words did I twist, all conversations have been recorded here? Stressed? Me? I personally enjoy a sprited debate, fact checkers are what the world needs most. If any thing I have posted can be disproved, I will delete my log and stay out of Wikiland. All the same, please don't stress over me, all of my facts are true, no matter how misplaced and poorly writen. Lest we forget DeepThroat, Scooter, and Bagdad Bob, sometimes the source gets thrown under the bus. If we only had Wikipedia for those without free speech or Internet.

Unfortunately, Darkstar1st has inserted (and/or reverted to) this material in several other articles, including Paul A. Bonacci, Lawrence King, and in the Conspiracy of Silence itself. (A related article, John DeCamp, was deleted as a copyvio from a web site and newspaper article, but featured similar allegations.) The problem, as I mentioned in the section "Paul A. Bonacci" above, is that the entire "censorship" issue is unsourced, unverified, and, frankly, something that exists in the minds of conspiracy theorists about so-called mind control and satanic ritual abuse, and is inherently POV. There's just no good way to treat it in Wikipedia except to summarize it and say, "some people have alleged that...". I have asked that any assertions that the documentary in question was censored (e.g., "threats from Congress of more restrictive television legislation resulted in the documentary never being aired.") be sourced and verified, but there has been no response, except to try to spam the material onto other pages, as we see here. (There are many, many documentaries and news reports that are produced but never aired; the most likely reason here is that the film did not pass a libel/slander review by the legal department of Discovery Network and/or Yorkshire TV, in terms of proof of allegations.) MCB 02:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

MCB Will you show where you requested a source? 5/3/94 TV guide will be my source as to the censorship of this documentary, as clearly stated many times before. "There are many, many documentaries and news reports that are produced but never aired" As to why it was pulled, maybe you have a point, the "Channel", a television station and its programs, may have pulled the show for potential ratings shortfall or libel/slander, although this has never happened before on the Discovery Channel after print listings were published.

I'm not sure what the reference to TV Guide is about, and the significance of the printed listing. What I'm concerned about -- and this is the third or fourth article where this type of issue has come up -- is that you insist on seizing upon the fact that the film was not aired, and trying to use Wikipedia to build a case, without sources or evidence, that there is some sort of grand cover-up conspiracy at work here. That is just not appropriate for Wikipedia. The film itself probably deserves a short, descriptive article, as do Paul Bonacci and Lawrence King. It's not at all clear that it belongs in the Discovery Channel article, since it appears that it was a very minor incident in the history of the channel. MCB 01:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

MCB How I could be more clear eludes me. The significance being, that once a show passes legal, the listing is published, ask a TV exec...You seem bent on editing out this fact, be my guest, facts don't die, even if buried alive. Why you insist on brevity in the vastness of cyberspace is even more perplexing. My guess is that you have a political motive behind your edits. When you read something you don't like, you simply edit out the offending text. Case and point, you insisted on editing the name of an attorney, Senator John DeCamp, that won a lawsuit that was the basis of a wikipedia page(Paul Bonacci) , only to have you edit overturned. Misguided and petty at best. Despite your edits, facts I have inserted to wikipedia remain. Wiki on mad deleter, you obviously have more time for exploring the "theory" of wikipedia than me. And if I am part of some "Satanic Mind Conspiracy" please don't tell anyone, it's a secret.

Political motive? Believe me, I'm the last person in the world who would be defending the Republican establishment. But on Wikipedia I am strenuously neutral, and although a scandal like this might be "juicy", it needs the same sourcing and general factual acceptance as anything else. It is not so much a matter of "brevity", but putting the right facts in the right places, keeping a neutral point of view, and sticking to the verifiable truth. Your material about Conspiracy of Silence is neither neutral nor verifiable. I did not suppress the article about John DeCamp; you are free to write one, so long as it is NPOV, verifiable, and not just copied from a website/newspaper. (The latter is why the previous article was deleted.) And the Paul A. Bonacci page remains; I did not propose that it be deleted, merely that it stick to the facts and not go off into wild speculation and allegations of vast, underground satanic and mind-control conspiracies.

As for the existence of the TV Guide listing, I just don't know why you insist on clinging to that as evidence of anything. TV Guide is put together and printed well in advance of broadcast, and things are pulled, rescheduled, etc., at the last minute with regularity. The fact that the film was featured in the printed TV Guide and then not aired is not evidence either supporting or refuting the allegation that it was pulled for political reasons.

MCB The simple fact remains, the majority of the Conspiracy of Silence, as well as many other posts, is still my edit, and it shall remain, no matter how many times you and other deletionist log into wikipedia. Me-thinks you should do some research of your own before you delete an entire edit. Instead why not pull the facts in which you agree? "I did not suppress the article about John DeCamp" That is subjective, however you did delete his name from the Paul Bonacci page more than once. In addition the page I posted about John DeCamp was deleted after you complained the text was copyrighted, I might add the owner of the copyright welcomes it's use in wikipedia. "Not just copied" If you so have the inclination, please reassemble the words the way you like, in the meantime I am perfectly happy to allow yet another whistle blower to be buried in so much verbal minutiae.

The owner of the copyright is the Des Moines Register, and I seriously doubt that they would permit their article to be republished by Wikipedia under the GFDL or other free licenses. (If you believe otherwise, the time and place to comment was on the article's Talk page, as directed by the Copyright Problems page).

The name of John DeCamp was deleted as part of an entire block of material that was completely POV and a soapbox for the conspiracy theorists. I was not willing to rewrite that, and summarized the actual facts into a paragraph, which was, and is, a good one. You mentioned DeCamp's omission and reinserted his name, which is just fine and it stands today. (Surely if I had some "political motive" to suppress mention of him, I would have reverted that, no?) And as I said, if you believe John DeCamp is worthy of an article, feel free to write one. Heck, maybe I will. Between being AG of Nebraska and his involvement in the King/Bonacci/Conspiracy of Silence affair, I'd agree he probably meets the requirement of encyclopedic notability and verifiability.

Look, I have no agenda of trying to exclude this series of events from Wikipedia. But the articles have to be factual, sourced, verifiably true, and NPOV. And well-written, hopefully, as well. What I saw in those articles -- and I don't know if this was your writing or not, there were many authors -- was a mixture of copyvios and long, rambling, defamatory, and barely comprehensible diatribes describing vast conspiracies, mind control, satanic rituals, and so forth. I'm sure you'd agree that that material does not belong in Wikipedia. MCB 03:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope you do have the energy to write the DeCamp page, as I have lost all zeal for this subject.

[edit] Greetings

Regarding your recent edits to the Falungong article, I removed them for two reasons. Most importantly, the first reason was that there was no citation for the material. It could be true, it sounds reasonable enough considering the subject of the article, but we would need independently verifiable links to double check the story. Secondly, and less importantly, it was placed in its own section rather than in the Persecution section of the article where it would be more appropriate to list it if verified. Regards, --Fire Star 19:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] II

I have discussed my reasons for my edits here. Feel free to respond.--Rockero 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source material

Original source material should not be placed in Wikipedia. We have a sister project, Wikisource for that purpose. Fel free to edit the summary I wrote, but please don't re-insert the source material. Thanks, -Will Beback 00:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding the same excerpt from the Mexican Constitution to articles. It does not belong. -Will Beback 20:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -Will Beback 00:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

well, as you can, see my revert has stayed in the edit Will. the warning does not apply here. maybe it is you that should refrain from deleting things for no reason.

[edit] vandalism

Please do not vandalize my user page. The same should apply for you, if you feel the need to make changes bring them up in the talk page. Listing sources wouldn't hurt either. M P M 02:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

ooops, i thought it was your talk page, all the same it was blank, and asking you to list a source does not qualify as vandelism...relax we are all on the same team. try decaf.

[edit] in flagrante delicto

FYI, I've added your fact to Citizen's arrest#Other countries. It's really not so unusual, but worthy of note nonetheless. We should eventually record every the legal stance of every significant country or culture. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Password

I'm afraid I can't offer any help. Maybe the email address registered to the account is incorrect? If you really can't figure it out I suppose the only thing to do would be to create a new username. If you like you can refer back to your old name so folks will see you've been around for a while. -Will Beback 23:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ya, prolly an old address i can't remember. More concerned I had violate some policy and thought of you 1st. Now I'll make a simular name. We have disagreed, yet you still responded, thank you.