User talk:CarolSeer

Welcome

Hello, CarolSeer, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 22:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Trilateral Commission, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trilateral Commission

Hello. Please see WP:V. Wikipedia relies on verifiable, reliable sources. Conversations are not verifiable, and therefore are not usable as sources. If the conversation was published or commented on in some way by a reliable source, then it could be assessed. If such a source exists, I suggest further discussion be held at Talk:Trilateral Commission. If it doesn't exist, it almost certainly doesn't belong in the article. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition is still not verifiable. This must be verifiable to the general public, not just members of Congress. There are other problems, also. You must also find sources which explain who Carol Binkley is and why comments by this person are encyclopedically significant. As WP:V explains, being verifiable is necessary, but still doesn't guarantee inclusion. Please discuss any further edits on the talk page. If you are Carol Binkley, you have a conflict of interest regarding this content, and should definitely propose any changes on the talk page, instead of making them yourself.

If you have any questions, you can post them here and I will respond. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Please respond explaining that you have read these. Binkley's location doesn't explain why the comment is encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it in, Greyfell. It will become public soon. Get off the tightrope. Carol BinkleyCarolSeer (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Perhaps you are the one with the conflict of interest.CarolSeer (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is historically significant, and thus needs to be included in any article on the Trilateral Commission. It is also critically important. And it has now become publicly transparent.CarolSeer (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're adding your own comments to an article, but are suggesting that I'm the one with a conflict of interest? Throwing out baseless accusations isn't helpful.

Saying that something will become public isn't sufficient. It needs to be public now. If the information isn't verifiable, it doesn't belong. Opinions need to be attributed to recognized experts, which you are not. You may be an expert, but you haven't explained how, or provided any way to assess that. Having spoken to Rockefeller is not automatically noteworthy. Reliable sources would need to establish context. Saying "it's historically significant" or "critically important" doesn't make it significant or important. Sources make it significant, and sources make it important and you haven't provided any sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said, leave it in, Greyfell. It needs to be made public. "I" am the source, and "I" am the one who approves of its being made public. And this is only the beginning. Or do you want Assange and others to "leak" it?CarolSeer (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rockefeller felt true remorse when I explained how the Trilateral Commission is a collection of unelected men and women who, because of some kind of felt responsibility, and their commercial interests, could influence world events. These men and women are not accountable to the people of the world in any way, shape or form. That is the reason its disbandment is called for. It is not just another think tank.CarolSeer (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand me and Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. We can only record the righting of great wrongs, but that's it. Like other encyclopedias, this is a tertiary source, and must stick to what published sources say. Verifiability means that we cannot accept original research. If you are the source, then you need to get a record of your comments published outside of Wikipedia. For many, many reasons, Wikipedia needs things to be published by reliable outlets. This is a core part to Wikipedia's philosophy. If Assange leaked these comments, that would be a starting point.

As for Rockefeller's personal feelings, that isn't verifiable either. We can only report what he said about his feelings, or what published, reliable experts have said, but only then with clear attribution. Do you have a reliable source discussing his remorse? Grayfell (talk)

And that's exactly what I did. Record a world event. I made no reference to my judgement of its rightness of wrongness. I only stated what happened. You are allowed to draw your own conclusions; however, you are not allowed to shield a "possible" organization from scrutiny. Rockefeller's personal feelings have nothing to do with it. Did you not like my placing his "genuine remorse" in the "Talk" section?CarolSeer (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're a little weird, Greyfell. I said HISTORICALLY significant and critically important (as legitimate criticism of the Trilateral Commission). I said nothing about righting great wrongs. Although there is truth in your statement, as transparency does tend to manifest truth. Leave it in, Greyfell. I hope you are not a mouthpiece for Secretary Tillerson. Most likely not Tillerson, but you may be speaking for someone other than yourself.CarolSeer (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want to keep valuable information from the world, Greyfell? If so, one may think YOU are part of a global conspiracy. There are other ways to make it public, along with methods to ensure the world knows of the globalist bias of Wikipedia, as well as the Trilateral Commission. Leave it in, Greyfell.CarolSeer (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my entry to this article that you find objectionable (and for reasons I find suspicious): In 2009, Carol Binkley, of Elbert, Colorado, commented to David Rockefeller that "In the interests of true global self-actualization, I find it necessary that the Trilateral Commission disband." This conversation is recorded in the Obama administration files, and was, and still is, available to members of the U.S. Congress. It is repeated here for transparency purposes. Shortly thereafter, in May 2009, Rockefeller hosted a meeting of philanthropists: "In a quiet meeting closed to the news media and the public, Bill Gates, David Rockefeller Sr., Oprah Winfrey and other leading philanthropists met in New York this month to discuss ways to promote efforts to solve growing social problems in America and abroad.""[13]CarolSeer (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have watched your edits to the Trilateral Commission with interest and growing concern. You have not supplied a reliable source to your edits and it appears that Carol Binkley of Elbert, Colorado, is not a notable source. You have also not answered whether you have a a conflict of interest in that you are that person? Wikipedia is a encyclopedia dealing in reliable sources and references and not conspiracy theories, such as your comments: "but you may be speaking for someone other than yourself", "If so, one may think YOU are part of a global conspiracy" and "and for reasons I find suspicious" If you cannot accept and abide by Wikipedia conventions, then your "edits" to the Trilateral Commission article will be deleted. Could I also respectfully point-out that the use of caps is considered shouting and is not acceptable. Also the bulk of the above comments should be on the article Talk page and not here. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How's your concern growing now, David? (And others, I imagine). Getting cold feet? Oh, and when I said Carol Binkley of Elbert, Colorado IS a notable person, you couldn't guess just how notable, nor how influential. Or maybe that is exactly what you are afraid of.CarolSeer (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Carol Binkley of Elbert, Colorado is a notable source.CarolSeer (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David, leave it in. The bulk IS on the talk page. How much more WRONG can you get? You sound AFRAID!!CarolSeer (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David, are you afraid of the truth?CarolSeer (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've found two of you.CarolSeer (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Your recent editing history at Trilateral Commission shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Also please answer editors concerns regarding; non-use of references, attacks on other editors motives and "shouting" in your replies. Thank you David J Johnson (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DAVID.CarolSeer (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, I'm more of a proponent of "A Boy Named Sue" school of argument.CarolSeer (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)(Otherwise known as CAROL BINKLEY).CarolSeer (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David, did you ever hear the expression: "Truth would rather go naked than wear the clothes falsehood left behind"? It is my expression, and is based on a Greek allegory about Truth and Falsehood.CarolSeer (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in THIS: "...but the concept of a free-as-in-freedom online encyclopedia (as distinct from mere open source)[4] was proposed by Richard Stallman in December 2000.[5] Crucially, Stallman's concept specifically included the idea that no central organization should control editing. This characteristic was in stark contrast to contemporary digital encyclopedias such as Microsoft Encarta, Encyclopædia Britannica, and even Bomis's Nupedia, which was Wikipedia's direct predecessor." From the Wikipedia article on "History of Wikipedia".CarolSeer (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RICK, I was expecting that. I am (was) here to propagate truth. I did so, and am not entirely displeased with this action. It, also, can be made public.CarolSeer (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]