User talk:Chris Riland

Welcome!

Hello, Chris Riland, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that 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, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Cheers, Skinwalker 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The breakthrough in alien abductions is notable because anybody with a multimeter, velostat and an encounter can prove it. That's the whole point of the article is that it is a demonstrable, repeatable phenomenon. The person who deleted this vandalized a biography of Michael Menkin three times buy deleting the contents and putting the word Paranoid with a link to tin-foil hats. They also created another site on thought screen helmets with no contents with a link to tin-foil hats. They also deleted the first announcement with a technical ruse. Thier site, tin-fil hats, ridicules the mentally ill and the person is not qualified to disucss mental illness because he/she has no credentials. They are also totally ignorant and prejudice against alien abductions and any information associatie with it. If skinwalker does this again it will be appealed to the editors of Wikipedia. The editors have already withdrawn the two sites that Skinwalker vandalized repeatedly.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to Tin-foil hat, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cheers, Skinwalker 03:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Tin-foil hat. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and they have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cheers, Skinwalker 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is you Skinwalker who vandalized the information on Michael Menkin. You deleted the contents and inserted the commend Paranoid with a link to your site on Tin Hats. You are the vandalizer.

Let’s get two things straight here: Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a personal website. You’ve vandalized several sites so much that the Wikipedia editors withdrew them. You are not an expert on anything. You are monitoring a site on tin-foil hats which ridicules mentally ill people. That alone is in bad taste. You are totally unqualified to make any remark about mental illness. You are neither a psychiatrist, a psychologist nor a mental health worker. You won’t even reveal your name or your profession so you have no credentials at all. You ridiculed information on a device which is used in alien abductions. You don’t know anything about the device, have never made it, never talked with anybody who uses one and have never researched the subject of alien abductions, so you are totally unqualified to make any remarks.

You vandalized one biography by deleting the contents and putting the word paranoid on it with a link to the site on tin-foil hats. That alone must disqualify you from making any comments on Wikipedia, which is a public encyclopedia, not a personal blog for attacking people you don’t like. The Wikipedia editors must realize the difference between a personal blog and an encyclopedia, which is an authoritive reference source. You have no expertise or authority at all. I am asking you to be blocked from making any changes to the alien abduction article. Your motive in making comments is to destroy all information with real evidence. That’s not an authoritive role, that’s the role of a vandalizer who wants to discredit the subject.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Michael Menkin, you will be blocked. Cheers, Skinwalker 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for vandalizing Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 04:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the vandal not me. A vandalism report was filed against you. You deleted all of the information on a biography of Michael Menkin and on the thought screen helmet. You also deleted all of the new information on alien abductions. A discovery with proof is not an advertisement or an editorial, your reason for deletion was wrong and is also vandalism.

The link to stopabductions.com was deleted on tin foil hats because it has nothing to do with stopabductions.com.

your vandilsim was reported.

May 2007

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Skinwalker 09:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am Michael Menkin. You are the one who is vandalizing my page and smearing me. Please stop it.

 29 May 2007

If you are Mr. Menkin, this raises a few issues. First, your self-promotion on wikipedia can be perceived as a conflict of interest. Your stopabductions site, however, is avowedly noncommercial, so it is not as serious as someone who continually adds a commercial link, but still troublesome. Second, if you are Mr. Menkin, why are you editing as "Chris Riland"? I myself use a pseudonym to edit, but it is unusual that someone chooses a proper name as a pseudonym.

I urge you to discuss changes you propose on the talk page of articles like Talk:Tin-foil hat and Talk:Abduction phenomenon. Continual reverting and deletion of verifiable material can be perceived as vandalism and/or a violation of our three revert rule, and can lead to your editing privileges being suspended. The material you are posting does not comply with the neutral point of view policy. If you have a serious problem with the way you or your work is being presented on wikipedia, you should read this article about resolving the problem. Anyway, please read the articles I've linked. Cheers, Skinwalker 14:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a biography which I did not write is vandalism. Putting a link to another site and deleteing all material in it is vandalism. That does not require a discussion.

Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot use as a pseudonym?

On the original biography of Michael Menkin, which was written by an anonymous person, you deleted all of the text, put the word Paranoid in large type with a link to tin foil hats. Cut all of the neutral and objective garbage you rant, this is outright vandalism and I have file a complaint against you.

breakthrough in alien abductions

The information about a breakthrough in alien abduction proof was neither an editorial nor an advertisement. The statement about a breakthrough is not a “Vanispamcruftisement.” The analogy to such a statement is wrong and ignores the subject matter. The information was not made by the person who put it on the site but a man in Scotland with a calibrated Fluke Mulitmeter and thought screen helmets. It was a report as new evidence for alien abductions. The alien abduction evidence presented was that it can now be demonstrated scientifically that persons claiming the alien abduction experience can show that they do receive a microwave signal, although the source of the signal cannot be proven.

The person who deleted the breakthrough announcement used the definition of an editorial as a procedural ruse to delete the announcement. As part of this person’s procedural ruse, they use specialized definitions like Vanispamcruftisement which they think makes them an authority and enforces the ruse. It’s a clever trick which doesn’t give them the right to destroy accurate input which they disagree with.

This same person has repeatedly deleted a biography of Michael Menkin in Wikipedia and replaced it to a link to his site, which is vandalism and was reported as vandalism. In the first incident of vandalism, a biography of Michael Menkin was deleted and replaced with the word PARANOID with a link to the person’s site. This is clearly an act of vandalism and extreme prejudice. This act must disqualify this person from making any editorial changes on the Alien Abductions section, because it is heavily biased.

The deletion was made by a person who thinks that all people reporting alien abductions are paranoid. The person completely ignored the significance of the information presented and gave a false reason for deleting the entry. It was a clever ruse, but it is still a ruse and unjustified.

This breakthrough discovery was made in Scotland and reported by Michael Menkin. The technician making the discovery wishes to remain anonymous.

In this difficult subject of alien abductions, where almost all information is anecdotal, this discovery by a Scotsman is particularly important because it is the first demonstrable, repeatable evidence of an alien abduction phenomenon.

Just look what this person did to a controversial subject:

A man with two thought screen helmets claims encounters with aliens in Scotland demonstrates that he is being sent a signal. The demonstration is made with a calibrated Fluke Multimeter so anybody claiming to have such an experience with a thought screen helmet and a multimeter can present the same scientific proof. It’s the first such scientific demonstration of the alien abduction/encounter phenomenon since it was reported, and the person who thinks all people claiming abductions are paranoid successfully deletes it and blocks the contributor with a procedural ruse. And the editors of Wikipedia buy his/her ruse!!

The editors should know that the person who conducted this ruse has a Wikipedia page on tin-foil hats which is critical of the thought screen helmet and tries to ridicule it. This person is a criminal masquerading as a policeman. The person vandalizes sites, then pretends they are objective to fool Wikipedia editors and threaten their victims as well. They are well versed in blocking articles and authors they don’t like.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Riland (talk • contribs)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Abduction phenomenon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Skinwalker 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a scientific breakthrough then it needs to be published in a scientific journal. Until that happens it is heresay and cannot go into our articles. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]