Jump to content

User talk:JasonCarswell/Archive 01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome! (2015-12-15)

Hello, JasonCarswell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


Control copyright icon Hello JasonCarswell, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to The Duchess and the Devil has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The Duchess and the Devil (2016-05-13+)

Hi. Sorry I'm half a year late. (I'm like that.) I watched the whole series and, as always, look it up on Wikipedia and IMDb but found the information here lacking a bit. Since there are several pages across the series I collected all of the information as found on Wikipedia for good or bad, tidied it up a bit, then pasted it back onto each of the pages for each episode in the series. I did not add information nor plagiarize from other sources (I don't even know how you came upon that conclusion (or discovery?)). I don't know if this changes your mind or not. You may revert your change or not, or even edit the other pages in the series to remove the content I copy+pasted on each. I hope you restore that page or build upon it across all pages of the series, but ultimately I leave that up to you now. You may wish to remove your comments on my page or not, again, up to you. I'm just learning/catching up on this talk page stuff. I hope I did this correctly. JasonCarswell (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The edits were picked up by a bot as being copyright violations. Investigating, I discovered the source webpage had been archived by the Wayback Machine here on July 3, 2012. You added the content to our articles on December 29, 2015. That's how I found the copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Neato. Thanks for the info/update. Back in December when it happened I looked and noticed that you'd changed one page or some but not all of them in the series. I don't know if you fixed it/them. Should I? Any thoughts/advice? On a completely different subject - I wrote my first page today and had problems with it all the way as a few people were deleting it as I was working on it. You are the only other person I've connected with on Wikipedia so far. Perhaps you might take a look at what was James Corbett (journalist) and advise me what to do and how to improve it. It got deleted/censored/banished. The anti-establishment material may be a political hot potato but it deserves a presence in a binary oppressive world of Trump-Hillary. We need to protect freedom while we still have it.
Any help with copyright cleanup would be appreciated if you have time, as we have very few people working in this area right now. Regarding your article on James Corbett, it was deleted because the article did not indicate why the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article at this time. The best place for new users to get help is at the Teahouse, where there's people standing by who are experienced in helping new users. — Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


James Corbett (journalist) (2016-05-13+)

Edit warring (2016-05-13)

Please stop adding inappropriate content to the page James Corbett without discussion. Edit warring is not productive. If the journalist in question meets the notability standard, by being the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, then you should write an article about him, rather than trying to describe him in elaborate detail on a disambiguation page. If he does not meet that standard, there is no point in mentioning him on the disambiguation page at all.

Also, it is not helpful to put square brackets around every word in every sentence. It gets annoying to readers to be distracted following links to articles that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic they are reading about. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of James Corbett (journalist) (2016-05-19)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on James Corbett (journalist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Harry Let us have speaks 08:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016 (2016-05-19)

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Harry Let us have speaks 08:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Under construction icon

Thank you for your recent contributions. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, with less risk of deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. Harry Let us have speaks 09:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Take it to userspace (2016-05-19)

You are putting a lot of effort into an article about someone who doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines and might well be deleted in its current form. Working in mainspace also means that your additions are subject to reversion, for example if you add unreliable sources.

I would urge you at this stage to copy what you have to your sandbox and work on it there. That will enable you to work without risk of your additions being reverted, and will allow you to ask for help and comments as you go, so that when the article is ready you can move it to mainspace with little risk of it being deleted. If the existing article has been deleted by then, you can recreate it, otherwise you can replace what is there with the new version. Harry Let us have speaks 10:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong, period. I've never had other edits in mainspace so promptly and viciously hacked up before. If you aren't censoring for government interests you sure are acting like it. I haven't added any unreliable sources if you'd bother to check them. I linked to FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds legit Wikipedia page and you deleted it. James Corbett frequently interviews many more legitimately politically relevant people, insiders, whistleblowers, authors, intellectuals, and other indie media producers. Some of his documentary videos are approaching 3 million views on YouTube alone, not counting all the re-ups or the originals on his own website. FYI: YouTube can be a legitimate source of information. You've made my first page contribution experience very disappointing. JasonCarswell (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I am actually trying to help you create an article that will be kept (assuming Corbett is actually notable). Stuffing the page with Youtube links to his videos purporting to be refs only lends weight to the suggestion that the page is purely promotional. Youtube is simply not a reliable source because it can be manipulated. Not saying that Corbett is manipulating it, but because it can be manipulated, it is suspect. Likewise blogs with reproduce his stuff. That others find him worthy of sharing could help with the notability claim, but you have to be careful. A blog that has no real editorial control and a reputation for checking facts is always going to be suspect. Because Corbett doesn't seem to have much or even any coverage in reliable sources, it is more difficult to establish notability. That is why I urge you again to do your work in userspace where you can ask me an others for comments. Thanks. Harry Let us have speaks 11:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I had written a lengthy response and request for advice to improve it. Some ass hat deleted it, and my words lost. JasonCarswell (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply (2016-05-19)

Hi, thanks for message. First note that that if you post directly to article space, your article will be judged immediately. You were correctly advised to write as a draft by Harry the Dirty Dog who was met with abuse and paranoid accusations for his trouble. Please try to be civil. For what it's worth, I'm not American and have never worked for their government (nor for MI5, MI6, GCHQ or any other UK agency). I deleted your article because

  • it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that he meets the notability guidelines. It is now Wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references, as defined in the link, or they will be deleted. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the him, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what he claims or interviewing him. Your only references were his own programme and a site that just had that programme in the list. Neither confirmed the claims in your article, and are obviously not acceptable sources anyway
  • it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: well-researched and well-cited articles... Without corporate masters James Corbett is free to report on and speak truth to power without bias or censorship... a strong growing community of followers and contributors... popular videos—and so on, just a fanpage.
  • there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. that's particularly the case when they are spamlinks to his and related pages
  • If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it.

You obviously find it difficult to accept that we have rules that require neutral text and independent third-party sources, and react with hostility even to helpful advice. If you do not wish to produce encyclopaedic content rather than a fan page, there are many websites out there that allow you to post whatever you like, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that what I have said above applies to other article, such as Sibel Edmonds. I don't think there is anything wrong with that well referenced page once your changes were reverted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
What? I don't understand this catch 22. What was wrong with what I added? I'm trying to cross reference as was directed. If it's not on Wikipedia it can't get on Wikipedia? Please explain it to me. I feel like I'm going crazy because I'm just not seeing how I'm messing up. Did you even read the reference the Newsbud project she's working on, which, as it happens, so is James Corbett? JasonCarswell (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Why take out ALL of my edits?
Thanks for your feedback. For over a decade I've edited enough Wikipedia I don't feel like a novice, however this was my first new page and feel confidant that it deserves to be here more than any "fan" page. (BTW, "fan" page is not only insulting but much of Wikipedia is fan stuff. I admit I am a fan but I was also legitimately trying to provide content and reference material. I am also a fan of Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein, but that has nothing to do with anything.) That direct article space posts will be judged immediately (and harshly and repeatedly) is good to know for the future. I was working on it when it was deleted, and again, and again. That's never happened to my edits. I was and would be willing to rewrite and learn but all my work was repeatedly foiled and hours deleted. I have no conflicts. My problem is learning this wall of Wiki-red-tape the hard way. I understand the need for rules, but I also understand rising fascism in the USA needs addressing with alt media. Deleting my words is not helpful advice. Please give me my words back to work with at the least, and, if you might, give me more advice so that I may present a better page. I did not start this lightly and do not intend to give up. I am sorry for expressing my frustrations improperly, but it seemed like an onslaught of censorship about important material. I suppose I expected supportive edits and "citations needed" to improve it rather than an all out deletion. JasonCarswell (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
No one suggested that you should be "deleting your words"; I suggested several times that you move them to your userspace where you could work on the article without fear of reversion or deletion, asking for help and advice as needed. Had you done as I suggested, you would not have lost all your work and could still try to create an article and demonstrate notability. But by what you have written here and elsewhere, I would also suggest that you have another major challenge, that of maintaining a neutral point of view given that you feel so strongly about the subject and his work. Harry Let us have speaks 15:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Our confusion might overlap here: I was working on the James Corbett (journalist) page and did not check these talk pages to even know to move to a userspace. I'd never used one, needed one, or knew they existed. Had I known about all of this I would have done as suggested rather than feel ambushed and deleted. Also, I do not deny a strong motivation, but I have also said I will try to get it to be acceptable because the goal is to provide information. Why bother doing anything if not motivated? I am passionate about being neutral :). Every time anyone contributes it is because they feel compelled to. Please get them back, if only for a moment, so that I can do as you said. JasonCarswell (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Just for info, if you want me to see a message on this page, I will know you have done so if you start it with my user name, User:Jimfbleak and sign it with four tildes ~~~~ when you post it. Or, you could just post on my talk as you have done already. If you need any further advice, feel free to ask one of us.

Your submission at Articles for creation: James Corbett (journalist) (May 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This draft has notability issues and tone issues. As to tone issues, it is written in a non-neutral tone, favorable rather than neutral to the ideas and journalism of Corbett. Also, there is overlinking of ordinary words when not needed. You may ask for further advice at the Teahouse.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello! JasonCarswell, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


The Make-Up vs Gospel Yeh-Yeh June 2016 (2016-06-09+)

Information icon Hello, I'm Optakeover. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to The Make-Up— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 05:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The Make-Up's made up Gospel Yeh-Yeh genre is part of their thing. On the bassist's page, one of her listed genres is Gospel Yeh-Yeh. I thought it was appropriate. I leave it in your hands whether you want to change hers or The Make-Up or leave it arbitrary. JasonCarswell (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. "Gospel Yeh-Yeh" is a genre that was created by the band itself and it's pretty obscure, so for Wikipedia I don't think it's good for readers by putting it in the infobox; however it has already been talked about in the article itself, that's enough of a mention in my opinion. Cheers, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 09:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You're not going to change Michelle Mae's genre? JasonCarswell (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

No I'm afraid not. That's because I don't agree with it. You are welcome to make the edit on your own, however. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 11:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I don't get it. (I'm new to this back-page talk stuff. I used to edit and never look back for better or worse.) Why it's appropriate on one page and not the other? I'm just trying to understand the arbitrary flow. (Maybe you can help me with my first failed attempt at a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Corbett_(journalist) ?) JasonCarswell (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't know you were talking about another article. If you want tips on how to create an article, you can read Wikipedia:Your first article. Hope this helps. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 07:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about all of it - seems so arbitrary and political, not that you've been political. Forget my first page attempt for a moment. What makes the genre acceptable for one page and not the other? JasonCarswell (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


Soaked in Bleach into Kurt Cobain (2016-07-06+)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution (2016-07-06+)

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Soaked in Bleach into Kurt Cobain. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for any problems I've caused. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for over a decade but only in 2016 I started paying more attention to the back-end "talk" pages etc. I find it all very overwhelming, confusing, daunting and often arbitrary.
I definitely am guilty of copying and pasting within Wikipedia assuming I was doing it well enough. You might want to re-check these 4 pages I was trying to synch up: Soaked in Bleach, Kurt Cobain, Death of Kurt Cobain, and Courtney Love.
I have other questions.
About these talk pages, do I have to write this on your talk page or mine, and when can I delete old conversations?
I even tried to write my first page, but failed. Would you please give me feedback on it?
Thanks in advance, sorry for my ignorance. JasonCarswell (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
If you reply on your own talk page, it's best to ping the person using the {{reply to}} template. You can manage your user talk page any way you like. Some people just remove messages after they've read them, but it's a good practice to set up an archiving system. What I've found is when I have a question I put the prefix WP: before the topic I want to learn about and search for that, and I usually find the help page I am looking for. For example, help on archiving a page can be found at WP:Archiving. For detailed help on any topic, I suggest you go to the WP:Teahouse, where experienced editors who specialize in helping new users are on standby. I looked at your draft Draft:James Corbett (journalist) and it was declined for notability reasons. That means the subject of the article needs to have in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. — Diannaa (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks sooo much for your wisdom. Sorry to bother you again but how would I be able to move this conversation back to my talk page where I'll keep it for reference? JasonCarswell (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
You could copy it over in its entirety if you like, or you could store it as a wikilink. Previous revision of User talk:Diannaa — Diannaa (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh hey, it's not necessarily about being wise; it's knowing where to look for the answers. Also, been here a while. Wiki is hard; it is known — Diannaa (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016 (2016-07-08+)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Death of Kurt Cobain. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I apologize to you as I did to Diannaa. I'd never bothered to learn about talk pages and all the other procedures until earlier this year. I'm trying to learn the ropes. And improve things. I'm learning but I'm no troll nor defamatory. I was only trying to improve and synch the information on Soaked in Bleach, Kurt Cobain, Death of Kurt Cobain, and Courtney Love. Diannaa kindly pointed out my copying and attribution ignorance. I think she fixed the attribution too. I started by copying talk page stuff. Then I was afraid to remove it. It seems rude or like hiding something to me and I don't know what the rules are for deleting stuff so I don't do it. Maybe I should have. Regarding the "El Duce of The Mentors" video I downloaded bundled with the "Soaked In Bleach" documentary, I didn't defame anyone, El Duce did. And considering the topic I thought it might be relevant. I didn't put it on the main page because I didn't know if it was as important and I believe the front page is more formal so I put it on the talk page. I still believe it belongs there, though now much less certain. Until now I was sure that the talk pages were informal discussions about what becomes formal. Now I'm not sure. I'm not asking with sarcasm - I just don't know - am I mistaken? I'm sorry if I offended you by my ignorance. I'm not a bad person. I'm just trying to help. Today I was just re-ordering by date and adding entries to the Assassination of John F. Kennedy in popular culture page if you care to check it and give me feedback. As I watch movies and documentaries I like to read up and sometimes improve related pages. If I ever make identical mistakes it's not intentional. (Not that I think I have, but that's the only reason I can think of to begrudge me.) Please don't block me. JasonCarswell (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to block you, that's why we do warnings, to get your attention. But to make it very clear: you were making or repeating an allegation of criminal acts against a living person based on a video you found somewhere on the Internet. Don't do that, ever. Anywhere on Wikipedia. Please read the biographies of living persons policy. Then re-read it. It applies in all Wikipedia namespaces. It's one thing if it's printed in the New York Times in the Times's voice or referenced in a notable publication written by an acknowledged expert on the subject and properly attributed to the idea's originator, it's another if it's speculation by Eldon Hoke. He's not a reliable source, he made his living as a provocateur.
You seem to be interested in conspiracy theories. Please read the policy on fringe theories. Wikipedia isn't a congenial home for speculation of that kind. There are plenty of other places on the Internet for that, and talkpages aren't meant to be a forum for casual discussion. Please read the reliable sourcing policy for more on sourcing.
Please remember that as Wikipedia has matured, the editing process has become much more rigorous. The days of writing about what one thinks they know or saw somewhere are long over, and harsh experience as Wikipedia has become relied upon as an authoritative source of information has dictated that questionable content gets looked at very hard. This feeds on itself, as the more trusted WP is, the more care must be exercised in editing its content. This isn't meant to discourage you - on the contrary, I'm happy to help out - but the editing environment is not casual. Pretty much everything gets scrutinized sooner or later, and you need to follow policy. Acroterion (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
One more thing to remember: since you mentioned democracy on a talkpage, please understand that Wikipedia isn't a democracy or an outlet for free speech. It is an encyclopedia and all else is subordinated to the project. You do not have the right to say whatever you want on Wikipedia - editing is a privilege, not a right. Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Acroterion: Wow! Thanks so much for making it seem so clear. It seems Eldon was a perfect example of what not to do, and you showed me why.
While I do go through phases of interests on related subjects, my interest are diverse. Conspiracy murder mysteries seem to be big this year. More interesting to me than conspiracy is skepticism. UFOs exist - as unidentified alleged objects - doesn't mean it's aliens. God is a myth until proven otherwise. So too, I'm fascinated with mass (hypnosis) perceptions of what seems true (ie. that foolish politicians are blundering through crisis after crisis in a broken system) versus the reality (they rigged the domination systems this way to maintain power, wealth, and influence to squash authentic competition of alternative ideas and solutions). The more I look the more I see folly in many forms of authority. I don't mean to rant but I'm trying to make my motives clear, I seek plausible truth via skepticism but I obviously have much to learn about authentication as it seems to arbitrarily apply to to plausibility, skepticism, and truth in our echo chamber culture.
Political democratic processes haven't evolved a bit since they wrote with quills so I have little faith in them. It seems worker coops and Wikipedia might be better examples for fairness and credibility. I shouldn't have said anything about democracy or free speech because as I've proven, any idiot can say anything, and I don't believe we have democracy, even on Wikipedia as you said. But I do hope we can let ideas, even contrary ones, have a chance. With authentication of course.
Thanks for giving me a chance to improve. JasonCarswell (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
PS. I'm not even a fan of Nirvana. I don't care about Love's guilt or innocence too much either. I care more about the lax systemic injustices around the world. (I do see the irony of me criticizing the laxness of others.) JasonCarswell (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


Truther (2016-07-11+)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Truther. Omni Flames (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: I don't understand why you blocked me. I wasn't quite finished working on that. I was going to nest COINTELPRO under MLK. I had previously expanded and revised those "Conspiracy Theorists of false flag events such as:" dated elements. History doesn't just repeat in Star Wars. Rhyming themes echo throughout political, economic, elite, military, and covert histories and I was presenting context and examples to support that. I deleted the "people who thought the school shooting was a false flag government attack" because it was redundant under the "events such as" as well as "false flag" above and below it, and the information in detail on the actual linked page itself. I really don't think I did anything wrong. Please undo this block. JasonCarswell (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, that was your adjustment of inappropriate material you added a few days ago, which I've removed. You seem to be speculatively adding things that have been claimed as "false flag" events to Truthers. As far as I'm aware, there are no Gulf of Tonkin Truthers. Please limit any changes of this kind to narrowly-defined content that can be sourced and is clearly in widespread use. I've removed your lists of tangential events from other articles. Please do not reinsert them. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for linking anything that can be asserted by somebody somewhere as a conspiracy theory. In particular, disambiguation pages aren't a vehicle for conveying such connections, they're intentionally just for disabiguating similar words, not concepts. "Rhyming themes" don't belong on dismbiguation pages, they're not meant to carry such freight. Acroterion (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Acroterion: Okay I've been spanked. Am I blocked on that page or everywhere? It seems harsh considering I don't revert things without discussing it after notification. I admit that I may have overdone it with the Tonkin Truthers, but I assure you there are lots of other Truthers on many other subjects that warrant mentioning. If I can reference these may I post them? Also, where would I be able to see or present the precedent of government deception through the ages. I've Googled "wikipedia government deception history" and some good pages come up but don't really get to what I'm trying to present. Perhaps you might help me develop a cogent neutral page presentation of skeptical/alternative/conspiracy history in context. (I mean, if I had a girlfriend who lied as often as the corporatocracy does, I'd be gone like that.) I'm eager to hear back from you at your leisure. JasonCarswell (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, I'm not trying to overthrow or subvert the government or anything. My goals are transparency and progressive evolution. Radical revolution might be nice or might be terrible but it might be necessary with looming climate change and the singularity. Just saying. JasonCarswell (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


User Page As Sandbox - July 2016 (2016-07-20)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at User:JasonCarswell. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

You need far better sources than those you listed. Please stop using your userpage as a staging ground for content or to house material that's been removed from article space, a sandbox or subpage is preferable for development, and please do not compile a list of people with a particular viewpoint without excellent referencing. Please review WP:UP#NOTAcroterion (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Acroterion: I'm working on better sources. It takes time. But I guess I better figure out this sandbox thing quick. ;) ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Sandboxes are easy - just start editing User:JasonCarswell/sandbox. There is also draft space. WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, though, and the general rule about "fake articles" applies to subpages just as much as your main user page. Also, please stop accusing other editors of censorship, obfuscation, misdirection, and the like - this is a collaborative environment that requires good faith. VQuakr (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@VQuakr: Thanks! What's the difference between drafts and sandboxes. I stumble into and got distracted by drafts for the last couple hours. Is User:JasonCarswell/Draft List of movies with tall ships similar? This is all so overwhelming. I don't want to make any fake anything, but like most distracted people, I may not always be quick about my process. There's only so many tall ship movies one can watch before you need a change.  :) I'm trying to learn how to "neutralize" myself. It's only in the Truther realm that I've ever had such extreme resistance. It's important to get it correct. You're more helpful than Acroterion who has not answered so many of my questions about his severe edits. I do unsarcastically genuinely appreciate his robot-like neutrality. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
As VQuakr notes, you just put a slash and a name after yor userpage address in the browser bar and create a subpage. You should reverse the order of your effort: find good sources in major mainstream outlets first, then put them in a draft. Strong sourcing helps to deal with concerns about controversial assertions about living individuals. You can't post speculation and source it later, and you can't use weak or fringe sourcing. Acroterion (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Acroterion: Thanks Acroterion. Glad to hear from you. :) You are correct about the order, and I was trying to do that with the list of celebs (which I wasn't going to "publish" or "go live" and move it off my user page until it was significant). I had some sources and I wanted better sources and confirmations but I needed a work space and time so I just conveniently dumped it there while researching. And FYI to put your mind at ease, there's absolutely no way I want to "out" anyone or make false assertions, let alone speculate. Eventually you'll see there are quite a few of them. Anecdotally, I was citing Mark Ruffalo as a Truther activist (easy pick), and was copying the lists of atheists code format. I thought I'd use him as an easy copy paste but didn't find him there. I thought I should add him ONLY if appropriate. After some research I learned that he grew up Catholic but didn't find anything to say he'd stayed or changed. So obviously I didn't add him to the atheist list. Speaking of lists, how many would you recommend is a good number to reach before "publishing"? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Apologies, A Truther's Cautionary Tale (2016-07-21+)

I want to sincerely apologize to all on Wikipedia and especially this page. Starting the usual way, I wanted to help fill some voids with these truths we hold to be self evident and maybe, just maybe, help right some great wrongs WP:RGW. Like a newbie fool I kept chasing my watchlist activity like a cat after a laser, often kicking a hornets nest that overwhelmingly exploded like a disco ball. For whatever organic reasons it much of it settled on this talk page. I knew of and little of the deep Wikipedia legalese language but more importantly was ignorant of parts of the essence, the why and how, of Wikipedia. The analogy that Wikipedia's purpose is not to ride the crest of the wave finally sunk in. You could say that you report what the reporters say after the tsunami. I have a whole new respect for you all and the effort behind Wikipedia, and of course the results. I realized that you are skillful like surfers without arms, then realized that that is not the best analogy, in part because the wave analogy and energy must be removed. It seem to me, really the Wikipedian's high bar role is to skillfully walk the high wire with no arms and half a brain. That doesn't mean less intelligence rather that you can cut out emotional nonsense, impulses, and disorder. The high bar of doing a good job is only more difficult without arms and balance limitations, by which I mean the limitations of mainstream media's Overton window often making it as difficult to analyse earthquakes only consulting weather men. Regardless of whether you are for or against the 9/11 Truth movement, emotional or logical, over all of it, Wikipedia procedures come first. It seems obvious once you realize it, now I have more to learn about it. I hope this is illustratively helpful to others. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I moved this from Talk:9/11 Truth movement. Article talk pages are for discussion of improvements to the article, not general discussion of the topic (or in this case, meta-discussion of Wikipedia itself). VQuakr (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@VQuakr: Of course. I need to learn to resist the urge to express myself, of which this is a perfect example. ;) Seriously though, I hope I can learn to apply better judgement. Any tips? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


9/11 Truth movement August 2016 (2016-08-19+)

Information icon Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to 9/11 Truth movement. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to 9/11 Truth movement. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at 9/11 Truth movement, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I cited the first time, then I wasn't finished (fruitlessly) editing when you dropped these on me. I left my "improvement" ideas on the talk page for a MONTH unanswered before I added them, and you gave me my first feedback and actually useful advice about "synthesis". Again, I have some reading to do. Maybe I'll see you again in a month. :) ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop abusing random cites that contain terminology you like. Joe Paterno Jr. had nothing to do with 9/11. Using a cite about him in an article about 9/11 because you saw "truther" in the source is an inappropriate synthesis (and a BLP violation, the Paterno family has enough trouble without being brought into 9/11 on Wikipedia). Likewise Gore Vidal took care to set his views apart from those he considers conspiracy theorists, which undermines your attempts to re-frame the terminology to that used by Vidal to express concern about purposeful inaction. You are using cites to express novel concepts that the sources do not contain: that is synthesis. You are also beginning to edit tendentiously, arguing from a thesis and then trying to support it.
Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. "It deserves suspicion and criticism every time someone is killed/murdered/terminated by the police or government" is fine for a personal blog or one of the many conspiracy fora on the Internet. We go by what the mainstream media state, and if they generally think it's fishy, we do too. It's clear that you're interested in the idea that, for instance, Cobain did not die as the news media account for it, instead latching onto statements by a now-deceased person who made a living from being outrageous as justification, and using that person's death as further proof that there's something going on. That's synthesis too. If you want to investigate and reveal The Truth, please use a difference place on the Internet. Acroterion (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome! (2015-12-15)

Hello, JasonCarswell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


Control copyright icon Hello JasonCarswell, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to The Duchess and the Devil has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The Duchess and the Devil (2016-05-13+)

Hi. Sorry I'm half a year late. (I'm like that.) I watched the whole series and, as always, look it up on Wikipedia and IMDb but found the information here lacking a bit. Since there are several pages across the series I collected all of the information as found on Wikipedia for good or bad, tidied it up a bit, then pasted it back onto each of the pages for each episode in the series. I did not add information nor plagiarize from other sources (I don't even know how you came upon that conclusion (or discovery?)). I don't know if this changes your mind or not. You may revert your change or not, or even edit the other pages in the series to remove the content I copy+pasted on each. I hope you restore that page or build upon it across all pages of the series, but ultimately I leave that up to you now. You may wish to remove your comments on my page or not, again, up to you. I'm just learning/catching up on this talk page stuff. I hope I did this correctly. JasonCarswell (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The edits were picked up by a bot as being copyright violations. Investigating, I discovered the source webpage had been archived by the Wayback Machine here on July 3, 2012. You added the content to our articles on December 29, 2015. That's how I found the copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Neato. Thanks for the info/update. Back in December when it happened I looked and noticed that you'd changed one page or some but not all of them in the series. I don't know if you fixed it/them. Should I? Any thoughts/advice? On a completely different subject - I wrote my first page today and had problems with it all the way as a few people were deleting it as I was working on it. You are the only other person I've connected with on Wikipedia so far. Perhaps you might take a look at what was James Corbett (journalist) and advise me what to do and how to improve it. It got deleted/censored/banished. The anti-establishment material may be a political hot potato but it deserves a presence in a binary oppressive world of Trump-Hillary. We need to protect freedom while we still have it.
Any help with copyright cleanup would be appreciated if you have time, as we have very few people working in this area right now. Regarding your article on James Corbett, it was deleted because the article did not indicate why the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article at this time. The best place for new users to get help is at the Teahouse, where there's people standing by who are experienced in helping new users. — Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


James Corbett (journalist) (2016-05-13+)

Edit warring (2016-05-13)

Please stop adding inappropriate content to the page James Corbett without discussion. Edit warring is not productive. If the journalist in question meets the notability standard, by being the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, then you should write an article about him, rather than trying to describe him in elaborate detail on a disambiguation page. If he does not meet that standard, there is no point in mentioning him on the disambiguation page at all.

Also, it is not helpful to put square brackets around every word in every sentence. It gets annoying to readers to be distracted following links to articles that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic they are reading about. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of James Corbett (journalist) (2016-05-19)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on James Corbett (journalist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Harry Let us have speaks 08:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016 (2016-05-19)

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Harry Let us have speaks 08:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Under construction icon

Thank you for your recent contributions. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, with less risk of deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. Harry Let us have speaks 09:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Take it to userspace (2016-05-19)

You are putting a lot of effort into an article about someone who doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines and might well be deleted in its current form. Working in mainspace also means that your additions are subject to reversion, for example if you add unreliable sources.

I would urge you at this stage to copy what you have to your sandbox and work on it there. That will enable you to work without risk of your additions being reverted, and will allow you to ask for help and comments as you go, so that when the article is ready you can move it to mainspace with little risk of it being deleted. If the existing article has been deleted by then, you can recreate it, otherwise you can replace what is there with the new version. Harry Let us have speaks 10:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong, period. I've never had other edits in mainspace so promptly and viciously hacked up before. If you aren't censoring for government interests you sure are acting like it. I haven't added any unreliable sources if you'd bother to check them. I linked to FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds legit Wikipedia page and you deleted it. James Corbett frequently interviews many more legitimately politically relevant people, insiders, whistleblowers, authors, intellectuals, and other indie media producers. Some of his documentary videos are approaching 3 million views on YouTube alone, not counting all the re-ups or the originals on his own website. FYI: YouTube can be a legitimate source of information. You've made my first page contribution experience very disappointing. JasonCarswell (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I am actually trying to help you create an article that will be kept (assuming Corbett is actually notable). Stuffing the page with Youtube links to his videos purporting to be refs only lends weight to the suggestion that the page is purely promotional. Youtube is simply not a reliable source because it can be manipulated. Not saying that Corbett is manipulating it, but because it can be manipulated, it is suspect. Likewise blogs with reproduce his stuff. That others find him worthy of sharing could help with the notability claim, but you have to be careful. A blog that has no real editorial control and a reputation for checking facts is always going to be suspect. Because Corbett doesn't seem to have much or even any coverage in reliable sources, it is more difficult to establish notability. That is why I urge you again to do your work in userspace where you can ask me an others for comments. Thanks. Harry Let us have speaks 11:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I had written a lengthy response and request for advice to improve it. Some ass hat deleted it, and my words lost. JasonCarswell (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply (2016-05-19)

Hi, thanks for message. First note that that if you post directly to article space, your article will be judged immediately. You were correctly advised to write as a draft by Harry the Dirty Dog who was met with abuse and paranoid accusations for his trouble. Please try to be civil. For what it's worth, I'm not American and have never worked for their government (nor for MI5, MI6, GCHQ or any other UK agency). I deleted your article because

  • it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that he meets the notability guidelines. It is now Wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references, as defined in the link, or they will be deleted. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the him, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what he claims or interviewing him. Your only references were his own programme and a site that just had that programme in the list. Neither confirmed the claims in your article, and are obviously not acceptable sources anyway
  • it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: well-researched and well-cited articles... Without corporate masters James Corbett is free to report on and speak truth to power without bias or censorship... a strong growing community of followers and contributors... popular videos—and so on, just a fanpage.
  • there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. that's particularly the case when they are spamlinks to his and related pages
  • If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it.

You obviously find it difficult to accept that we have rules that require neutral text and independent third-party sources, and react with hostility even to helpful advice. If you do not wish to produce encyclopaedic content rather than a fan page, there are many websites out there that allow you to post whatever you like, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that what I have said above applies to other article, such as Sibel Edmonds. I don't think there is anything wrong with that well referenced page once your changes were reverted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
What? I don't understand this catch 22. What was wrong with what I added? I'm trying to cross reference as was directed. If it's not on Wikipedia it can't get on Wikipedia? Please explain it to me. I feel like I'm going crazy because I'm just not seeing how I'm messing up. Did you even read the reference the Newsbud project she's working on, which, as it happens, so is James Corbett? JasonCarswell (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Why take out ALL of my edits?
Thanks for your feedback. For over a decade I've edited enough Wikipedia I don't feel like a novice, however this was my first new page and feel confidant that it deserves to be here more than any "fan" page. (BTW, "fan" page is not only insulting but much of Wikipedia is fan stuff. I admit I am a fan but I was also legitimately trying to provide content and reference material. I am also a fan of Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein, but that has nothing to do with anything.) That direct article space posts will be judged immediately (and harshly and repeatedly) is good to know for the future. I was working on it when it was deleted, and again, and again. That's never happened to my edits. I was and would be willing to rewrite and learn but all my work was repeatedly foiled and hours deleted. I have no conflicts. My problem is learning this wall of Wiki-red-tape the hard way. I understand the need for rules, but I also understand rising fascism in the USA needs addressing with alt media. Deleting my words is not helpful advice. Please give me my words back to work with at the least, and, if you might, give me more advice so that I may present a better page. I did not start this lightly and do not intend to give up. I am sorry for expressing my frustrations improperly, but it seemed like an onslaught of censorship about important material. I suppose I expected supportive edits and "citations needed" to improve it rather than an all out deletion. JasonCarswell (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
No one suggested that you should be "deleting your words"; I suggested several times that you move them to your userspace where you could work on the article without fear of reversion or deletion, asking for help and advice as needed. Had you done as I suggested, you would not have lost all your work and could still try to create an article and demonstrate notability. But by what you have written here and elsewhere, I would also suggest that you have another major challenge, that of maintaining a neutral point of view given that you feel so strongly about the subject and his work. Harry Let us have speaks 15:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Our confusion might overlap here: I was working on the James Corbett (journalist) page and did not check these talk pages to even know to move to a userspace. I'd never used one, needed one, or knew they existed. Had I known about all of this I would have done as suggested rather than feel ambushed and deleted. Also, I do not deny a strong motivation, but I have also said I will try to get it to be acceptable because the goal is to provide information. Why bother doing anything if not motivated? I am passionate about being neutral :). Every time anyone contributes it is because they feel compelled to. Please get them back, if only for a moment, so that I can do as you said. JasonCarswell (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Just for info, if you want me to see a message on this page, I will know you have done so if you start it with my user name, User:Jimfbleak and sign it with four tildes ~~~~ when you post it. Or, you could just post on my talk as you have done already. If you need any further advice, feel free to ask one of us.

Your submission at Articles for creation: James Corbett (journalist) (May 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This draft has notability issues and tone issues. As to tone issues, it is written in a non-neutral tone, favorable rather than neutral to the ideas and journalism of Corbett. Also, there is overlinking of ordinary words when not needed. You may ask for further advice at the Teahouse.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello! JasonCarswell, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


The Make-Up vs Gospel Yeh-Yeh June 2016 (2016-06-09+)

Information icon Hello, I'm Optakeover. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to The Make-Up— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 05:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The Make-Up's made up Gospel Yeh-Yeh genre is part of their thing. On the bassist's page, one of her listed genres is Gospel Yeh-Yeh. I thought it was appropriate. I leave it in your hands whether you want to change hers or The Make-Up or leave it arbitrary. JasonCarswell (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. "Gospel Yeh-Yeh" is a genre that was created by the band itself and it's pretty obscure, so for Wikipedia I don't think it's good for readers by putting it in the infobox; however it has already been talked about in the article itself, that's enough of a mention in my opinion. Cheers, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 09:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You're not going to change Michelle Mae's genre? JasonCarswell (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

No I'm afraid not. That's because I don't agree with it. You are welcome to make the edit on your own, however. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 11:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I don't get it. (I'm new to this back-page talk stuff. I used to edit and never look back for better or worse.) Why it's appropriate on one page and not the other? I'm just trying to understand the arbitrary flow. (Maybe you can help me with my first failed attempt at a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Corbett_(journalist) ?) JasonCarswell (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't know you were talking about another article. If you want tips on how to create an article, you can read Wikipedia:Your first article. Hope this helps. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 07:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about all of it - seems so arbitrary and political, not that you've been political. Forget my first page attempt for a moment. What makes the genre acceptable for one page and not the other? JasonCarswell (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


Soaked in Bleach into Kurt Cobain (2016-07-06+)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution (2016-07-06+)

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Soaked in Bleach into Kurt Cobain. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for any problems I've caused. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for over a decade but only in 2016 I started paying more attention to the back-end "talk" pages etc. I find it all very overwhelming, confusing, daunting and often arbitrary.
I definitely am guilty of copying and pasting within Wikipedia assuming I was doing it well enough. You might want to re-check these 4 pages I was trying to synch up: Soaked in Bleach, Kurt Cobain, Death of Kurt Cobain, and Courtney Love.
I have other questions.
About these talk pages, do I have to write this on your talk page or mine, and when can I delete old conversations?
I even tried to write my first page, but failed. Would you please give me feedback on it?
Thanks in advance, sorry for my ignorance. JasonCarswell (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
If you reply on your own talk page, it's best to ping the person using the {{reply to}} template. You can manage your user talk page any way you like. Some people just remove messages after they've read them, but it's a good practice to set up an archiving system. What I've found is when I have a question I put the prefix WP: before the topic I want to learn about and search for that, and I usually find the help page I am looking for. For example, help on archiving a page can be found at WP:Archiving. For detailed help on any topic, I suggest you go to the WP:Teahouse, where experienced editors who specialize in helping new users are on standby. I looked at your draft Draft:James Corbett (journalist) and it was declined for notability reasons. That means the subject of the article needs to have in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. — Diannaa (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks sooo much for your wisdom. Sorry to bother you again but how would I be able to move this conversation back to my talk page where I'll keep it for reference? JasonCarswell (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
You could copy it over in its entirety if you like, or you could store it as a wikilink. Previous revision of User talk:Diannaa — Diannaa (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh hey, it's not necessarily about being wise; it's knowing where to look for the answers. Also, been here a while. Wiki is hard; it is known — Diannaa (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016 (2016-07-08+)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Death of Kurt Cobain. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I apologize to you as I did to Diannaa. I'd never bothered to learn about talk pages and all the other procedures until earlier this year. I'm trying to learn the ropes. And improve things. I'm learning but I'm no troll nor defamatory. I was only trying to improve and synch the information on Soaked in Bleach, Kurt Cobain, Death of Kurt Cobain, and Courtney Love. Diannaa kindly pointed out my copying and attribution ignorance. I think she fixed the attribution too. I started by copying talk page stuff. Then I was afraid to remove it. It seems rude or like hiding something to me and I don't know what the rules are for deleting stuff so I don't do it. Maybe I should have. Regarding the "El Duce of The Mentors" video I downloaded bundled with the "Soaked In Bleach" documentary, I didn't defame anyone, El Duce did. And considering the topic I thought it might be relevant. I didn't put it on the main page because I didn't know if it was as important and I believe the front page is more formal so I put it on the talk page. I still believe it belongs there, though now much less certain. Until now I was sure that the talk pages were informal discussions about what becomes formal. Now I'm not sure. I'm not asking with sarcasm - I just don't know - am I mistaken? I'm sorry if I offended you by my ignorance. I'm not a bad person. I'm just trying to help. Today I was just re-ordering by date and adding entries to the Assassination of John F. Kennedy in popular culture page if you care to check it and give me feedback. As I watch movies and documentaries I like to read up and sometimes improve related pages. If I ever make identical mistakes it's not intentional. (Not that I think I have, but that's the only reason I can think of to begrudge me.) Please don't block me. JasonCarswell (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to block you, that's why we do warnings, to get your attention. But to make it very clear: you were making or repeating an allegation of criminal acts against a living person based on a video you found somewhere on the Internet. Don't do that, ever. Anywhere on Wikipedia. Please read the biographies of living persons policy. Then re-read it. It applies in all Wikipedia namespaces. It's one thing if it's printed in the New York Times in the Times's voice or referenced in a notable publication written by an acknowledged expert on the subject and properly attributed to the idea's originator, it's another if it's speculation by Eldon Hoke. He's not a reliable source, he made his living as a provocateur.
You seem to be interested in conspiracy theories. Please read the policy on fringe theories. Wikipedia isn't a congenial home for speculation of that kind. There are plenty of other places on the Internet for that, and talkpages aren't meant to be a forum for casual discussion. Please read the reliable sourcing policy for more on sourcing.
Please remember that as Wikipedia has matured, the editing process has become much more rigorous. The days of writing about what one thinks they know or saw somewhere are long over, and harsh experience as Wikipedia has become relied upon as an authoritative source of information has dictated that questionable content gets looked at very hard. This feeds on itself, as the more trusted WP is, the more care must be exercised in editing its content. This isn't meant to discourage you - on the contrary, I'm happy to help out - but the editing environment is not casual. Pretty much everything gets scrutinized sooner or later, and you need to follow policy. Acroterion (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
One more thing to remember: since you mentioned democracy on a talkpage, please understand that Wikipedia isn't a democracy or an outlet for free speech. It is an encyclopedia and all else is subordinated to the project. You do not have the right to say whatever you want on Wikipedia - editing is a privilege, not a right. Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Acroterion: Wow! Thanks so much for making it seem so clear. It seems Eldon was a perfect example of what not to do, and you showed me why.
While I do go through phases of interests on related subjects, my interest are diverse. Conspiracy murder mysteries seem to be big this year. More interesting to me than conspiracy is skepticism. UFOs exist - as unidentified alleged objects - doesn't mean it's aliens. God is a myth until proven otherwise. So too, I'm fascinated with mass (hypnosis) perceptions of what seems true (ie. that foolish politicians are blundering through crisis after crisis in a broken system) versus the reality (they rigged the domination systems this way to maintain power, wealth, and influence to squash authentic competition of alternative ideas and solutions). The more I look the more I see folly in many forms of authority. I don't mean to rant but I'm trying to make my motives clear, I seek plausible truth via skepticism but I obviously have much to learn about authentication as it seems to arbitrarily apply to to plausibility, skepticism, and truth in our echo chamber culture.
Political democratic processes haven't evolved a bit since they wrote with quills so I have little faith in them. It seems worker coops and Wikipedia might be better examples for fairness and credibility. I shouldn't have said anything about democracy or free speech because as I've proven, any idiot can say anything, and I don't believe we have democracy, even on Wikipedia as you said. But I do hope we can let ideas, even contrary ones, have a chance. With authentication of course.
Thanks for giving me a chance to improve. JasonCarswell (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
PS. I'm not even a fan of Nirvana. I don't care about Love's guilt or innocence too much either. I care more about the lax systemic injustices around the world. (I do see the irony of me criticizing the laxness of others.) JasonCarswell (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


Truther (2016-07-11+)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Truther. Omni Flames (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: I don't understand why you blocked me. I wasn't quite finished working on that. I was going to nest COINTELPRO under MLK. I had previously expanded and revised those "Conspiracy Theorists of false flag events such as:" dated elements. History doesn't just repeat in Star Wars. Rhyming themes echo throughout political, economic, elite, military, and covert histories and I was presenting context and examples to support that. I deleted the "people who thought the school shooting was a false flag government attack" because it was redundant under the "events such as" as well as "false flag" above and below it, and the information in detail on the actual linked page itself. I really don't think I did anything wrong. Please undo this block. JasonCarswell (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, that was your adjustment of inappropriate material you added a few days ago, which I've removed. You seem to be speculatively adding things that have been claimed as "false flag" events to Truthers. As far as I'm aware, there are no Gulf of Tonkin Truthers. Please limit any changes of this kind to narrowly-defined content that can be sourced and is clearly in widespread use. I've removed your lists of tangential events from other articles. Please do not reinsert them. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for linking anything that can be asserted by somebody somewhere as a conspiracy theory. In particular, disambiguation pages aren't a vehicle for conveying such connections, they're intentionally just for disabiguating similar words, not concepts. "Rhyming themes" don't belong on dismbiguation pages, they're not meant to carry such freight. Acroterion (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Acroterion: Okay I've been spanked. Am I blocked on that page or everywhere? It seems harsh considering I don't revert things without discussing it after notification. I admit that I may have overdone it with the Tonkin Truthers, but I assure you there are lots of other Truthers on many other subjects that warrant mentioning. If I can reference these may I post them? Also, where would I be able to see or present the precedent of government deception through the ages. I've Googled "wikipedia government deception history" and some good pages come up but don't really get to what I'm trying to present. Perhaps you might help me develop a cogent neutral page presentation of skeptical/alternative/conspiracy history in context. (I mean, if I had a girlfriend who lied as often as the corporatocracy does, I'd be gone like that.) I'm eager to hear back from you at your leisure. JasonCarswell (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, I'm not trying to overthrow or subvert the government or anything. My goals are transparency and progressive evolution. Radical revolution might be nice or might be terrible but it might be necessary with looming climate change and the singularity. Just saying. JasonCarswell (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


User Page As Sandbox - July 2016 (2016-07-20)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at User:JasonCarswell. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

You need far better sources than those you listed. Please stop using your userpage as a staging ground for content or to house material that's been removed from article space, a sandbox or subpage is preferable for development, and please do not compile a list of people with a particular viewpoint without excellent referencing. Please review WP:UP#NOTAcroterion (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Acroterion: I'm working on better sources. It takes time. But I guess I better figure out this sandbox thing quick. ;) ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Sandboxes are easy - just start editing User:JasonCarswell/sandbox. There is also draft space. WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, though, and the general rule about "fake articles" applies to subpages just as much as your main user page. Also, please stop accusing other editors of censorship, obfuscation, misdirection, and the like - this is a collaborative environment that requires good faith. VQuakr (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@VQuakr: Thanks! What's the difference between drafts and sandboxes. I stumble into and got distracted by drafts for the last couple hours. Is User:JasonCarswell/Draft List of movies with tall ships similar? This is all so overwhelming. I don't want to make any fake anything, but like most distracted people, I may not always be quick about my process. There's only so many tall ship movies one can watch before you need a change.  :) I'm trying to learn how to "neutralize" myself. It's only in the Truther realm that I've ever had such extreme resistance. It's important to get it correct. You're more helpful than Acroterion who has not answered so many of my questions about his severe edits. I do unsarcastically genuinely appreciate his robot-like neutrality. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
As VQuakr notes, you just put a slash and a name after yor userpage address in the browser bar and create a subpage. You should reverse the order of your effort: find good sources in major mainstream outlets first, then put them in a draft. Strong sourcing helps to deal with concerns about controversial assertions about living individuals. You can't post speculation and source it later, and you can't use weak or fringe sourcing. Acroterion (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Acroterion: Thanks Acroterion. Glad to hear from you. :) You are correct about the order, and I was trying to do that with the list of celebs (which I wasn't going to "publish" or "go live" and move it off my user page until it was significant). I had some sources and I wanted better sources and confirmations but I needed a work space and time so I just conveniently dumped it there while researching. And FYI to put your mind at ease, there's absolutely no way I want to "out" anyone or make false assertions, let alone speculate. Eventually you'll see there are quite a few of them. Anecdotally, I was citing Mark Ruffalo as a Truther activist (easy pick), and was copying the lists of atheists code format. I thought I'd use him as an easy copy paste but didn't find him there. I thought I should add him ONLY if appropriate. After some research I learned that he grew up Catholic but didn't find anything to say he'd stayed or changed. So obviously I didn't add him to the atheist list. Speaking of lists, how many would you recommend is a good number to reach before "publishing"? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Apologies, A Truther's Cautionary Tale (2016-07-21+)

I want to sincerely apologize to all on Wikipedia and especially this page. Starting the usual way, I wanted to help fill some voids with these truths we hold to be self evident and maybe, just maybe, help right some great wrongs WP:RGW. Like a newbie fool I kept chasing my watchlist activity like a cat after a laser, often kicking a hornets nest that overwhelmingly exploded like a disco ball. For whatever organic reasons it much of it settled on this talk page. I knew of and little of the deep Wikipedia legalese language but more importantly was ignorant of parts of the essence, the why and how, of Wikipedia. The analogy that Wikipedia's purpose is not to ride the crest of the wave finally sunk in. You could say that you report what the reporters say after the tsunami. I have a whole new respect for you all and the effort behind Wikipedia, and of course the results. I realized that you are skillful like surfers without arms, then realized that that is not the best analogy, in part because the wave analogy and energy must be removed. It seem to me, really the Wikipedian's high bar role is to skillfully walk the high wire with no arms and half a brain. That doesn't mean less intelligence rather that you can cut out emotional nonsense, impulses, and disorder. The high bar of doing a good job is only more difficult without arms and balance limitations, by which I mean the limitations of mainstream media's Overton window often making it as difficult to analyse earthquakes only consulting weather men. Regardless of whether you are for or against the 9/11 Truth movement, emotional or logical, over all of it, Wikipedia procedures come first. It seems obvious once you realize it, now I have more to learn about it. I hope this is illustratively helpful to others. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I moved this from Talk:9/11 Truth movement. Article talk pages are for discussion of improvements to the article, not general discussion of the topic (or in this case, meta-discussion of Wikipedia itself). VQuakr (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@VQuakr: Of course. I need to learn to resist the urge to express myself, of which this is a perfect example. ;) Seriously though, I hope I can learn to apply better judgement. Any tips? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


9/11 Truth movement August 2016 (2016-08-19+)

Information icon Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to 9/11 Truth movement. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to 9/11 Truth movement. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at 9/11 Truth movement, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I cited the first time, then I wasn't finished (fruitlessly) editing when you dropped these on me. I left my "improvement" ideas on the talk page for a MONTH unanswered before I added them, and you gave me my first feedback and actually useful advice about "synthesis". Again, I have some reading to do. Maybe I'll see you again in a month. :) ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop abusing random cites that contain terminology you like. Joe Paterno Jr. had nothing to do with 9/11. Using a cite about him in an article about 9/11 because you saw "truther" in the source is an inappropriate synthesis (and a BLP violation, the Paterno family has enough trouble without being brought into 9/11 on Wikipedia). Likewise Gore Vidal took care to set his views apart from those he considers conspiracy theorists, which undermines your attempts to re-frame the terminology to that used by Vidal to express concern about purposeful inaction. You are using cites to express novel concepts that the sources do not contain: that is synthesis. You are also beginning to edit tendentiously, arguing from a thesis and then trying to support it.
Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. "It deserves suspicion and criticism every time someone is killed/murdered/terminated by the police or government" is fine for a personal blog or one of the many conspiracy fora on the Internet. We go by what the mainstream media state, and if they generally think it's fishy, we do too. It's clear that you're interested in the idea that, for instance, Cobain did not die as the news media account for it, instead latching onto statements by a now-deceased person who made a living from being outrageous as justification, and using that person's death as further proof that there's something going on. That's synthesis too. If you want to investigate and reveal The Truth, please use a difference place on the Internet. Acroterion (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


Resistance (2016-08-19)

@JasonCarswell: I am on your side. This site is operated by shills. Baby boomers and good Texas "christians" like Famspear and hearty national monument-loving West Virginians like Acroterion have policed the 9/11 pages. Resistance is futile. Ripleysnow (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ripleysnow: Resistance is not futile, it is difficult. They have real or imagined reasons to obscure the truth, deflect questions, and promote the one and only sacred official story. Acroterion is a vigilant robot I suspect is not just an architect. I've only been active in the "back" of Wikipedia for about half a year, using talk pages and learning the lingo was frustrating but I realize now how necessary it can be. Even with that, it's still all politics and hierarchy - and it's certainly been infiltrated since day one. What we need is a Wikipedia 9-11 Truth group to organize and fairly represent, if nothing else, at least our own version(s) page(s) rather than the muffled and limited "information" that is there now. Revolution through numbers and evolution within their rules. I hope you get this message because I'd [like] a Truther group started, perhaps with us. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Y'all might wanna reconsider this discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I said "within their rules". I wasn't talking about overthrowing everything, simply doing a better job at discussing, debating, improving and presenting what we and MANY others feel is improperly presented. How is it that you found my "revolutionary" statement so quickly? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"What we need is a Wikipedia 9-11 Truth group to organize and fairly represent," "Revolution through numbers," "I'd a Truther group started," -- reads like WP:MEAT despite the "within their rules" bit. All user contributions are public info. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I know they're public, but why are you watching me (or Ripleysnow)? You are correct, it does sound like that when you purposely take it out of context. I have two questions I hope you might answer. I understand the meatpuppetry, but as one of the group of badgers, obviously "grouping" is not forbidden, what should I do? I know for a fact there is an atheist group out there, probably many many many more, including government employees, but they follow the rules. I have not found a 9/11 Truther Movement box but I will make one eventually. And specifically, about the real taboo issue, what should I do if something is not correct, is muted, or restricted but I know it's not accurate? I'm not even saying that truthers are right or wrong, but they have questions and a community, whether lunatics or rational, those questions and communities are not properly represented and there is a, dare I say, military-like vigilance around the movement. All we want is the ability to question for transparency and truth. I am working on the discussion page but to little avail. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

First, read WP:AGF and quit imagining conspiracies around every corner.
Second, read WP:GEVAL. Neutrality doesn't mean artificial validity between all view points.
Third, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories. The reality that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were carried out by members of Al-Qaeda and not the US or Israeli governments, that the buildings fell due to those attacks and not because of additional bombs, etc... the "official account" -- is reality as far as Wikipedia itself is concerned. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:

  1. Thanks for the arbitration link. I have some reading to do.
  2. I am trying to help, and I'm not imagining things, and you are/were watching me. I'm just asking. Is there a process? Some terrorist alert or something more benign? All governments are as corrupt as so many headlines indicate. The American election is a farce, and if you can't recognize the show I'm sorry for you. That doesn't mean everything is tainted, but it's certainly out there. If you're not helping improve then you're only defending the status quo. You could be improving or defending anything else or doing something non-Wikipedia, so obviously you have some reason to defend this particular page and perhaps some like it. You're only defending because either you believe my ideas invalid - or - valid but won't be bothered to help fix it or help me fix it - or - you won't allow the questions or the truth out.
  3. I'm not asking for your "neutrality", I'm trying to properly present the Truther Movement which is, as you know, a catch-22 as their "fringe" material is off the table. Try writing about Christianity without quoting the bible. In many cases the false balance is actually tilted the opposite of what you're saying.
  4. You're not selling me at all. I know how limited the "official account" of Wikipedia is, and that is why it needs improving.

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear JasonCarswell: No, the editors of Wikipedia do not have "reasons to obscure the truth, deflect questions, and promote the one and only sacred official story." And no, your proper role at Wikipedia is not to provide a place for "truthers" to present their "questions." Wikipedia is not here to provide a place where "truthers" can be "properly represented."
Wikipedia is not the proper place for you to present your "ideas" -- valid or otherwise. Wikipedia is not here to "allow the questions or the truth out," as you put it. Our proper purpose here is to continue to build an on-line encyclopedia, not to provide a Soapbox for "truthers." Famspear (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Can you please clarify your comment "Y'all might wanna reconsider this discussion" ? I interpret it to be hostile, and to imply that a negative repercussion may result. Please keep in mind, this is a talk page, thanks. I am eager to get a better understanding of the context of your statement.Ripleysnow (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Famspear: My single edit was to remove the term "conspiracy theorists" from the first sentence of the 9/11 Truth movement article. The "conspiracy theorist" is a pejorative and subjective label. The "Conspiracy Theory" article itself notes in the first paragraph: "The term conspiracy theory has derogatory connotations" and later: "he phrase conspiracy theory was originally a neutral term and only acquired a pejorative connotation in the mid 1960s, implying that the advocate of the theory has a paranoid tendency to imagine the influence of some powerful, malicious, covert agency in events" This shows that according to Wikipedia itself, the term has a negative connotation. To immediately label adherents of a particular ideology with a derogatory adjective does not seem to be a neutral treatment of the article's subject matter. Furthermore, I would be happy to add information from veritable sources including prominent and established engineers, scientists and professors who have conducted research that is counter to the official cover story, and to which the US government has refused to release data either corroborating or disproving their conclusions. Politicians, including the former Italian Prime Minister Francesco Cossiga have cast doubt on the cover story. To condemn the 9/11 Truth movement as a conspiracy theory contradicts the same wikipedia policies that you are claiming serve to support its inclusion. Ripleysnow (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ripleysnow: The fact that you believe you need a "clarification" from Ian.thomson highlights the problem. You need to get familiar with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. In addition to the veiled attack on Acroterion, Jason explicitly stated: "What we need is a Wikipedia 9-11 Truth group to organize and fairly represent, if nothing else, at least our own version(s) page(s) rather than the muffled and limited "information" that is there now." That indicates that your motivation is to try to use Wikipedia to promote your agenda. That is highly improper. Wikipedia is not YOUR website. It is not a soapbox for you to push your version of what you believe The Truth to be.
And, look at this material you wrote: "This site is operated by shills. Baby boomers and good Texas "christians" like Famspear ...." What part of the term personal attack do you not understand? "This site is operated by shills"??? Really? That's it? Other editors revert your edits, and so you falsely claim that "this site is operated by shills". That is a violation of the rules here. The fact that you are making these kinds of statements shows bad faith on your part.
On the other comments, you still aren't getting it. The fact that a term in an article (such as "conspiracy theory" in this article) has derogatory connotations is not a valid complaint. Under the rules of Wikipedia, it is OK to use the term "conspiracy theorist" in the article in this way, even though the term has derogatory connotations. Period. The term is used by the reliable sources. Also, it is an accurate description of the subject matter.
You say: "To condemn the 9/11 Truth movement as a conspiracy theory contradicts the same wikipedia policies that you are claiming serve to support its inclusion." That is incorrect. Wikipedia itself is not "condemning" the "9/11 Truth Movement". A principal aspect of Neutral Point of View is that Wikipedia itself does not take a position. It is the sources that are taking the positions. People who espouse the beliefs of "Truthers" have their positions. People who do not espouse those beliefs have opposite positions. Both sides can be and are reflected in the article.
However, Neutral Point of View does not mean straining to give equal weight to both sides. Famspear (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I don't have a personal interest in the whole "9/11 truth" stuff, which I guess is why I haven't made many edits to the article. However, it would seem to me that one of the central tenets of "9/11 truthers" in general is that the so-called "official version" of the description of the events of September 11, 2001 is not only false, but is also part of a gigantic conspiracy to hide The Truth as the "truthers" claim it to be. As viewed from an outsider like me, it appears that this is pretty much the whole point of their schtick.

Indeed, based on some of your comments above, you (Ripley and Jason) seem to think that this supposed "conspiracy" extends to the editors here (oh, excuse me, the "shills" here) in Wikipedia. Your complaint about the use of the term "conspiracy theory" reminds me of complaints made by tax protesters about the fact that U.S. federal courts use the technical term "tax protesters" to describe the people who are tax protesters. The fact that a term has negative connotations does not make the use of the term inaccurate or unfair. Someone who really is a Nazi is a Nazi. Someone who really is a convicted felon is a convicted felon. A tax protester is a tax protester. A conspiracy theorist is a conspiracy theorist. This is not rocket science. Famspear (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JasonCarswell. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


MfD nomination of Draft:James Corbett (journalist)

Draft:James Corbett (journalist), a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:James Corbett (journalist) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:James Corbett (journalist) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You sure know how to sweet talk guy who's just trying to make an article. RT is a news channel, like it or not, or perhaps you should remove the all of the RT related articles. And for the record, Jesus Christ, there are a lot of people with JC initials. Fictional like Jesus Christ and John Connor, and real like James Corbett in Japan and me here in Windsor Ontario. I don't know how you do it but check the IP thingy. Also, he's likely too busy to care about Wikipedia articles because he's reporting on geopolitical abuses of power which occasionally gets termed "fringe" or the CIA's vilification term "conspiracy theory" because it drills through the torrent of mainstream media and government propaganda lies. I can list some if you like. Now that you've given me some overly harsh criticism I can address the issues and make it better. The draft should not be deleted, but I admitted at the top of it, that it needs more work. (copied here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:James Corbett (journalist) and here: User talk:Ian.thomson and here: User talk:JasonCarswell) ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


MfD nomination of Draft:Truther (article)

Draft:Truther (article), a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Truther (article) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Truther (article) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


MfD nomination of Draft:List of 9/11 Truth websites

Draft:List of 9/11 Truth websites, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of 9/11 Truth websites and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:List of 9/11 Truth websites during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


ANI notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


MfD nomination of Draft:List of 9/11 Truth conferences

Draft:List of 9/11 Truth conferences, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of 9/11 Truth conferences and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:List of 9/11 Truth conferences during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JasonCarswell/Archive_01&oldid=1136177255"