User talk:Boraboy4ever

The Children's Investment Fund Management

Howdy and let me first welcome you to Wikipedia! I saw the back and forth on The Children's Investment Fund Management about the sexual harassment section. Claims like that can be potentially libelous and need to have citations to published reliable sources. I have removed it until such a source can be found. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I AM THE SOURCE!!!! should i write a paper first? this is wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boraboy4ever (talk • contribs)

Yes, in order to use it in Wikipedia, it needs to be a published source. Even if you can personally vouch for the validity of the information, it can not be included. It must be published in a reliable source (see also verification). Since the topic potentially has liability issues related to people working at or formerly working at the company, this also can be considered related to biography of living persons policy. Please do not add the material back without a published, reliable source. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"reliable source" is relative and a complete fallacy. there is not one leading journalistic article in mankind that is reliable except that we except the degree of education the writer has. To use the argument that a reliable source be used is like saying "did god say that." An absolute irrelevant beckoning for some type of proof. the proof is what i heard yet i am not aloud to site my own vocal faculty because it is not published nor do i hold a degree in journalism? this puts to shame the whole degree of human knowledge and what we experience hence what all my professors say "wikipedia is not a reliable source!" lol it does prove that wikipedia has no merit in any relevancy. your wasting your time here teadrinker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boraboy4ever (talk • contribs)

You may contribute according to the rules here on Wikipedia or you may go elsewhere. Adding content where the only source is yourself is not an option. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"sad... that puts to shame all of wikipedia and yourself as a graduate in your illusion." Besides it is written on singatard.com. does it need to be in a journal of somesort? ill scan all!!!! my emails. is that proof enough? i have the real proof yet you want a written source? should ancient human ancestry be written? makes no sense and as a archeologist... my sister and brother-in-law are both phd archs physical evidence is key. makes no sense at all to have a written source. I hope i find out who you are to discredit all of your logic and future publishings in ecology.

The relevant standards are outlined at WP:RS. Self-published are generally not acceptable for those sorts of claims. The standards for inclusion in Wikipedia are indeed different than academic work. Academic work focuses on creating original ideas and synthesis, while Wikipedia explicitly prohibits original research. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so anything written on here is prohibited? how did wikipedia discover the birthdate and location of Chris Hohn? go ahead read the articles/citations.

Removing information which is uncited is not common practice, since often it is easily located. But there are exceptions, and potentially libelous claims are one of them. I went ahead and added a source which covers the facts of that section, but there is probably a better one. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL you just sited and internal source totally violating wikipedias ownpolicy! lol you have no merit! i will just keep making my website more proactive and also rip you teadrinker apart. fyi if you checked out singatard.com i now have your ip address and ill find out what school or wherever you are and anything you write ill spend my life becuase im bored discrediting your illusion. not only that your cited a site that uses the site of the fund in question. im LMAO! retard. zealous grad student. your profile gives alot away and i hope you can defend yourself academically.

I have no argument with you, only concerns for the quality of Wikipedia. The source I cited is a newspaper; if you can cite a newspaper to back up your claims, then they can remain in Wikipedia. However threats are not appropriate on Wikipedia. Nothing good will come of them. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrit! you just cited a newspaper that claims to be reliable. i will incorporate and make a newspaper company then ill site it. its called TEADRINKERNEWS.com this site has no merit and you have no integrity!

Have you taken a look at reliable sources guidelines? They may have the answers you're looking for. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt matter wikipedia is not at all reliable nor does it hold any itegrity or validity anything from wikipedia should be considered questionable and false if first hand testimnials are not allowed as references.

Many people express surprise that (from WP:V) "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It is in many ways exactly the opposite of what good writing is elsewhere. Nevertheless, those are the rules here. Hope this helps, --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever,hypocrit perhaps you should actually read the article.... it states TCI which "manages" CIFF was founded in 2003.. however you linked to an article that dates it to 2002. please delete my profile as i believe this site is an illusion to the truth and my documents will be posted to wikileaks instead.

Feel free to blank this page if you would like. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy, I will investigate. I am not a regular editor on that page, I just happened upon it and noticed a problem. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In science we disprove not prove. remember that. ill actually keep this page and reference it and your name when i figure out what university you attend. perhaps your professor will discredit your master thesis when he finds out you spend so much time here.

Look, as I said before, I have no beef with you. But if you do harass me off Wikipedia, it will be reported to the police. Threats of this sort usually result in blocking the editor. As such, you have been blocked. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of Indefinite for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TeaDrinker (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]