User talk:Bobby5000

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to The Myth of Hitler's Pope, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. TN‑X-Man 23:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. YodaRULZ (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. YodaRULZ (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Bobby5000. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Road Wizard (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on recent edits

Hi. You asked for advice on my talk page about your recent edits and the warnings you have received.[1] I'll take a look at your edits now and see if I can offer some suggestions where you may be going wrong. Road Wizard (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the Gamal Abdel Nasser article you said, "There is little evidence to support the theory that Israel sought to attack any country and the 1967 war occurred because of joint Arab action designed to destroy the smaller country." and it was reverted by YodaRULZ.[2] The problem with the text is that you have run up against some of our core policies, verifiability, no original opinions (/research) and the neutral point of view.

The first problem is whether your edit is verifiable; is it a fact that another editor can check and confirm? You have not said what your text was based on, so it is hard to verify it. If you based your text on information in a book, a news website or another source you can declare it as a reference after the sentence like this: <ref>Mr R Efference, The life of Gamal Abdel Nasser, p.161</ref>. Once you have declared the reference another editor can verify whether or not it is accurate.

The second problem is whether it is a fact or just your own interpretation of the facts. Personal opinions of editors are not allowed as they would make the articles a complete mess. For example, if you said "The Zoom Zoom car company make the worst cars ever", I could then add my own opinion, "No they are not, the Zoom Zoom car company is great." Neither statement is a verifiable fact so other editors cannot tell if they are accurate. A way around this problem is if the opinion appears in a reliable source. You can say something like, "According to Mr T Jenkins, the Zoom Zoom car company make the worst cars ever.<ref>Mr T Jenkins, Car companies of the 21st century, p.56</ref>" Another editor can then verify that Mr T Jenkins did make that statement.

The third problem is maintaining a neutral point of view. There are usually at least two sides to every story and Wikipedia has to find a way to balance the various sides. For example, using a Middle East context like your text above, an Israeli newspaper reports the death of Mr G Aza, a Palestinian terrorist, at an Israeli checkpoint, while a Palestinian newspaper reports the death of Mr G Aza, an innocent Palestinian farmer, at an Israeli checkpoint. Both newspapers are considered equally reliable, so which way should Wikipedia report the death? Should we say he was a terrorist or an innocent farmer?

The neutral way to report it would be, "On 20 September 2012 Mr G Aza was killed at an Israeli checkpoint. Israeli sources claimed that he was a terrorist while Palestinian sources argued that he was just an innocent farmer.<ref>The Israeli Times, 22 September 2012</ref><ref>The Palestinian Daily, 23 September 2012</ref>" Wikipedia has reported the facts of the case without taking either the Israeli or Palestinian side. We have maintained neutrality.

I'll take a look at some of your other edits to see if there are any other issues I can help you with. Road Wizard (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ameer son talks about the problem of using Wikipedia as its own source in the section below, so the only other point I think I should raise at this stage is the three revert rule. When editors disagree on what should be included in an article one editor adds a sentence and another editor reverts them. At this point it is a good idea for the editors to talk about the disagreement and come to a compromise. However, some editors fall into the habit of reinserting the disputed text without discussion and the other editor reverts them again. If this continues then both sides are being disruptive to Wikipedia and may be blocked (a first offence usually gives a block of one day but repeating the disruptive behaviour can lead to a permanent ban).

The only advice I can give in a situation where you are both reverting is to start a discussion either on the other editor's talk page or on the article talk page. You then have an opportunity to find out what the other editor disagrees with and adjust your text so that you are both happy. The ideal to aim for in any discussion is to achieve consenus on how to proceed.

Please let me know if you have any further questions. Road Wizard (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Gamal Abdel Nasser

Hi Bobby500, I removed your recent edits from the Gamal Abdel Nasser page once more. Please see WP:Reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for a Wikipedia article, and neither is the Jewish Virtual Library since it frequently serves as a mirror of Wikipedia. Since the article is WP:GA rated, please try to rely on either scholarly sources, news articles or reliable web pages. Also, try to relate the content you're adding to the subject of the article, Gamal Abdel Nasser. If Nasser issued an order to expel Jews or personally encouraged it than the inclusion of the info in a neutral manner is warranted. The source, and yourself in turn, have to demonstrate how it's relevant to the topic, or else it belongs in a different article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 14 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Cripto page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation in T790M

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the page T790M, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition was deleted under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." You may also e-mail or mail the Foundation to release the content. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more.

While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subsections

Hi. Instead of using boldface, you should create proper subsections using headers. Happy editing. Opencooper (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Charles Lindbergh. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly try to follow guidelines. However, the Lindbergh Wikepedia article as done now is not an impartial, fact- based compilation of his life, but a biased article which selectively includes various opinions and omits multiple facts. That Jews were taken from Slovakia, Austria, and Poland and starved or murdered seems indisputable, yet each time I put a reference to these facts it is taken down. In assessing Lindbergh it would seem obvious one needs to reference historical facts. He successfully argued against intervention and many were killed.

Wikepedia is designed as a fact-based compilation. One could point to Lindbergh's contribution to the Allied war effort as a pilot as they have, and the reader would need to make his own decisions. My edits were designed to provide relevant facts. if there is a different way they should be presented, I am happy to listen to your suggestions as an experienced editor. Bobby5000 (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly try to follow guidelines. However, the Lindbergh Wikepedia article as done now is not an impartial, fact- based compilation of his life, but a biased article which selectively includes various opinions and omits multiple facts. That Jews were taken from Slovakia, Austria, and Poland and starved or murdered seems indisputable, yet each time I put a reference to these facts it is taken down. In assessing Lindbergh it would seem obvious one needs to reference historical facts.

If the cited source does not mention Lindbergh then you are in violation of WP:SYNTH.

I sent you this warning because of your edit-warring behavior on top of pushing your own analysis that isn't found in the cited source. You cited a piece in Deutsche Welle to support your statement that Lindbergh had "multiple adulterous relationships with two German women" although the cited source only mentions one German woman. You wrote that "Berg relied largely upon materials supplied by the Lindbergh family and it was not surprising that his book was favorable to him" but this is not covered at all in the source. In this manner you violated WP:NOR.

If you want to make the Lindbergh biography more neutral you must follow Wikipedia policies as you do so. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice on avoiding possible problems

In response to a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, I have examined your editing history, from your first edits in 2008 up to now. Before seeing that report I was unaware of the existence of your account, and your editing has been 100% on pages which I have never edited, nor, so far as I recall, even looked at. Therefore what I am about to say is an account of how your editing history looks to an uninvolved outside observer with no preconceptions about your editing.
At a fairly early time in your history you learnt to make your editing look more acceptable than your earliest editing; you stopped making so many edits which openly stated forceful opinions; you took to attaching "ref" links to your edits, and so on. However, the essential nature of your editing has remained the same. Your aim is to promote your opinions and point of view. You still post statements of opinion, and although you have become more skillful at usually making their subjective nature less obvious, you still sometimes do make pure and unmistakable subjective statements of your point of view. Many of the references you cite are difficult or impossible to verify, but at least some of those which can reasonably easily be checked do not in fact support the assertions to which you attach them. Above all, you have for some reason a persistence which at times looks almost obsessive in trying to turn the article Charles Lindbergh into a coatrack for your commentary about Nazism, even though much of what you have posted to that article on that subject is not directly related to Lindbergh at all. There is also clear evidence that you have edited both using this account and without logging in to it, sometimes on the same page. As far as I know you may have done that with perfectly innocent intentions, but it runs the danger of giving the impression that you are trying to hide the fact that some of the editing is not done by you, so please try to avoid doing that. It is particularly important that you don't combine logged-in and logged-out editing on one page, as the risk of giving the impression of attempting to deceive is particularly high in that situation.
Please take careful note of these points. I have taken some time and trouble to write out this message in the hope of helping you to realise what changes are needed in your editing, so that you may avoid being blocked from editing, which is likely to happen if you continue in the same way. JBW (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is designed to provide an informative and fact-based review of a variety of topics. To the extent my posts do not meet applicable standards, I'm happy to get advice and work to do better. But candidly that doesn't seem to be the real problem from my perspective.

1. The Issue: Should Accurate Fact-Based Posts be Taken Down Because they Deal with the Holocaust

Lindbergh publicly spoke out against American intervention from 1938-41. During that period, Austria, Slovakia, and Poland were conquered. Jews there were first identified and then sent to concentration camps where most died in a tragedy called the Holocaust. Many books detail what occurred, and on that does not seem to be disputed by anyone, except perhaps a few holocaust deniers who are not mainstream. In assessing Lindbergh, it seems fair to lay out the facts of what occurred, particularly because his alleged anti-semitism and views on the "Jewish problem" are discussed in the post. Yet almost every time, I post something in this area, it's taken down. Efforts to discuss it in different ways seem unsuccessful, and frequently it seems the view is, we don't want to discuss the Holocaust here.

2. Accuracy

I would be happy to happy to quote from the Holocaust Encyclopedia or other sources, but again accuracy does not seem to be the real issue. You cited a reference to an affair Lindbergh had above. However, the Wikipedia post on Lindbergh had already vetted and approved this material:

"Beginning in 1957, General Lindbergh engaged in lengthy sexual relationships with three women while remaining married to Anne Morrow. He fathered three children with hatmaker Brigitte Hesshaimer (1926–2001), who had lived in the small Bavarian town of Geretsried. He had two children with her sister Mariette, a painter, living in Grimisuat. Lindbergh also had a son and daughter (born in 1959 and 1961) with Valeska, an East Prussian aristocrat who was his private secretary in Europe and lived in Baden-Baden.[261][262][263][264] All seven children were born between 1958 and 1967.[2]

Ten days before he died, Lindbergh wrote to each of his European mistresses, imploring them to maintain the utmost secrecy about his illicit activities with them even after his death.[265], Wikepdia, Charles Lindbergh

My post is more modest and accurate. I don't think I was required to repeat the site, and a reference to material already compiled as it bore on the completeness of Berg's work was fair in my view. If you want to say that commentary on that was incorrect, fine, I can be more careful.

3. Other Contravening Material

Lindbergh's supporters are free to put forth accurate material about his life. They could, for example note the important contribution of the U.S. Air Force to the war in Japan in which Lindbergh served. To modify material about suffering during the holocaust would be hard, but factual material is allowed. However, having a no Holocaust policy in a post which deals with Jews, policies toward the Nazis, and World War II, seems wrong. A million children died, and others suffered horribly, and Lindbergh was a major force in United States policy and World War II. Books debate his role and responsibility. So I'm just working to honor the lives lost by presenting an accurate and factual picture of what occurred as the Wikepedia rules allow. That some people might find that uncomfortable or have another agenda, is not sufficient reason for me to avoid the issue. Bobby5000 (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to provide an example. The last removed post was this.

On March 12, 1938, German troops marched into Austria to annex the German-speaking nation for the Third Reich. ^[1]. The Mauthausen concentration camp was then established in the summer of 1938 and designated a category III camp, a special penal camp with a harsh regimen. Jews and other disfavored people were removed there. ^[2]

The materials were factual and accurate. That Germany invaded Austria is clear. The problem seems clear, again in this Wikepedia post dealing with World War II and positions towards Jews, discussion of concentration camps is apparently prohibited. Bobby5000 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-annexes-austria
^ Holocaust Encyclopedia, the Camp System in Austria, https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/austria

These sources are perfectly fine for what they are, but they don't mention Lindbergh. They don't belong on the Lindbergh biography page. Any source that doesn't mention Lindbergh is a violation of WP:SYNTH if it is cited at the Lindbergh bio. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your comment and followup. However implementation of the rule seems to vary. In the Wikipedia on Lindbergh we see this, "In 1919, British aviators John Alcock and Arthur Brown won the Daily Mail prize for the first nonstop transatlantic flight. Their aircraft was a Vickers Vimy IV biplane designed for service in WW1." The article cited is "Alcock and Brown: The First Non-stop Aerial Crossing of the Atlantic" Archived December 13, 2010. It does not appear to mention Lindbergh. It is inserted we assume to place Lindbergh's flight in historical context, just as I attempted to place the position on non-intervention and comments about Jews in the context of Nazi takeover of adjoining countries.

Lindbergh's transatlantic flight becomes significant only when we appreciate its historical significance. We're probably unaware of who made the 5th, 10th, or 20th flight. Had Lindbergh made some negative comments about Jews or suggested non-intervention during some other time, say 1890, or 1920, it might have had minimal importance. It becomes important when it paved the way for Nazi takeover of adjoining countries and large-scale extermination of Jews. Placing Lindbergh's acts in context is important.

This type of post has been done on many Wikipedia sites and in many contexts. A Wikipedia article on Jack the Ripper states, "In the mid-19th century, England experienced an influx of Irish immigrants who swelled the populations of the major cities, including the East End of London." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_the_Ripper The cited article does not mention the subject of the Wikipedia article.

There are some guidelines and gray areas. There can be reasonable limits on how far afield a post may go. However where the current Lindbergh article stands is, in my mind, insufficient, and reflects some element of bias, rather than a free exposition of fact-based material. I would not mind if any posts were shortened, contrary views presented, or editing provided, but simply eliminating Holocaust material in an article which deals with anti-semitism during World War II seems unreasonable. If posts were to be scrutinized for historical accuracy, I would understand but the above notes, even where they were clearly historically accurate, factually supported, and reasonably brief, they were removed.

I do appreciate your followup. Bobby5000 (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I won't spend time on trying to explain to you every way that your message misses the point, because if you don't understand the points from the explanation you have already been given then I think it would probably be difficult to make it any clearer to you. However, I will just point out the following.

What do you mean by saying that I "cited a reference to an affair Lindbergh had?" I am not aware that I cited anything, and I can't see where I said anything about any "affair".
"Working to honor the lives lost" is totally contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not seek to honour, dishonour, praise, condemn, or criticise anyone or anything; doing so is contrary to the policy on neutral point of view, the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, and the policy on What Wikipedia is not.
Nobody has advocated "a no Holocaust policy". JBW (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put you won. The page will remain highly biased and partisan. In a wiki which purports to discusses World War II and someone who appeared with Hitler and spoke out against American intervention, there will be no discussion of the Holocaust. Posts which sought to mention factual events central to the discussion have been removed: Germany invaded Austria and took Jews to concentration camps out, the invasion of Slovakia after Charles spoke out against intervention, also out, there will be no discussion of the Holocaust or mistreatment of Jews. Even material which discussed who are Jews, treatment of Poles, the policy of killing anyone who hid Jews, has been eliminated. There were those who envisioned Wikipedia as an impressive product of factual, well-supported material, provided by the public, will be disappointed, this page is a product of a highly partisan, biased editing product, where factual material is routinely and consistently removed.

At first, the thought was material was not well-supported, but even where indisputably accurate material was provided, it was rejected, revealing the ideological bias.

You got what you wanted a page about an important figure during the Holocaust which does not mention the Holocaust, or the events during it. Bobby5000 (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logged out

You must stop your logged-out editing through the New Jersey IP range Special:Contributions/68.194.16.128/25. You are in violation of WP:MULTIPLE which can result in a hard block. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-annexes-austria

[2] Holocaust Encyclopedia, the Camp System in Austria, https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/austria

[1]

[2]