User talk:Truehistoryjvba

Welcome!

Hello, Truehistoryjvba, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hobartimus (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edits to Ring Lardner, but in the future please do not use Wikipedia as a source for itself. Use reliable sources as specified on the relevant policy page. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

judyth

please see [1]

AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judyth Vary Baker. Fences&Windows 18:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mind's made up. The article should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, can you state what the evidence is that Anna Lewis presents for a relationship between Baker and Oswald? And what evidence does Ed Haslam have that is independent of anything told to him by Baker?
The evidence of Baker's science experience is not compelling; this shows that she was a bright science student, but not exceptional, and the evidence that she knew Oswald is also circumstantial without credible witness statements; work payment slips, a green glass, a bus ticket. There are inconsistencies in her story of meeting Oswald, for example, such as whether or not she spoke Russian to him when they first met, and whether or not she knew of Dr Ochsner before or after meeting Oswald. There are also inconsistencies in the explanation of the anti-Castro science work - was a virus involved in creating the cancer cell line, and if so, which virus? Fences&Windows 00:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, ANNA LEWIS worked at Thompson's (Restaurant where anti-Castro activists met)known in Warren Commission and Garrison documents. Anna Lewis consented to be filmed only once, testifying before 6 persons in Jan. 2000 in New Orleans that she and her husband, David Lewis, double-dated with Baker and Oswald in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, and that her husband and Oswald discussed assassinating Castro. Further, she stated Baker was Oswald's "mistress" and that Oswald was "a dominating man" regarding Baker. Lewis took her four children and left her husband in 1965, disgusted because of his involvement with Jack Suggs Martin, an alcoholic, and with Martin's homosexual friends, such as David Ferrie, before Garrison subpoened him: David Lewis testified that he did not know her whereabouts. EDWARD T> HASLAM is a respected New Orleans native, the son of a beloved Tulane doctor who knew David Ferrie's friend, Dr. Mary Sherman (violently murdered the same day the Warren Commission came for unsolicited testimonies to New Orleans). He filmed his testimony in 2003 and has repeated it in many interviews, especially concerning his being invited by "Judyth Vary Baker" in 1972 to discuss Oswald and Dr. Sherman (at this time, he had begun investigating Sherman's brutal death, a task that eventually took three decades). That negative meeting caused him to ignore rumors he had heard about Judyth Vary Baker, until 1999, when Sixty Minutes asked him to research Baker (he refused because of his bad experience with "Judyth Vary Baker" in 1972. However, Haslam finally met Baker in 2001, when she visited Florida (where he had moved): he was shocked that she was was not the woman who had invited him to meet her in 1972. After Baker presented evidence, including information nobody had known but Haslam concerning Dr. Sherman, he went back to his old records, etc. After more evidence surfaced, he then rewrote his book (Mary, Ferrie & the Monkey Virus), adding three chapters about Baker and Oswald, and published in 2007 as Dr. Mary's Monkey by Trine Day (has gone to multiple printings), in which Haslam states Judyth Vary Baker worked in an underground lab with Dr. Mary Sherman and David Ferrie in a clandestine cancer project, where his own investigations had already placed Oswald. Haslam presents well-researched information and references.(I copy this from Baker's friend, S. W.) truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the summary. Fences&Windows 23:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing accounts

Please note that a Wikipedia account should not be shared by more than one individual. See WP:NOSHARE. Fences&Windows 23:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==Response: I, Allan M, do not SHARE my account with Mrs. Baker. I did copy what Mrs. Baker wrote and published it IF I LIKED IT, but it is my decision, it is my account. While Mrs. Baker corrects my English. and helps me with research, that is advising me and she does not have the password or any other direct access to my account. My computer and email address always belonged to me since July, 2008 (I purchased Mrs. Baker's computer in July, 2008, to help Finance her move to Turkey). I knew her a year by then. She will soon be moving outside the European Union again.
I see you have done a lot of editing, a lot of hard work. How do you find the time?
My interest is history and politics. About my sign in name: in Sweden, we countrymen know the true history of Flag Day, it is nothing to celebrate, but young people in Stockholm don't know this. An American wrote me and said "Happy Flag Day!" Such a joke! (to us who know the true history!) So I choose my name, truehistory. Then I saw the lies about Judyth Baker on the Internet. These people all belong to a newsgroup, saying she has no evidence, and they printed lies, such as saying that 'provisional asylum' did not exist in Sweden when I am Swedish and live here and know better, and I was with Mrs. Baker when the authorities explained it to her. They kept writing that she lied about her political asylum experience and they still kept saying she was lying even when she tried to write to them and explain. All of this is amazing because they never met Judyth Baker but do this for ten years now. Ten years and never give her peace in the US and she had to move to Europe. I was present when she got bad phone calls. She gets defended by us who have met her because she is a good woman and we all see the evidence they say does not exist, with our own eyes. So it shocks us. She has many friends all places she has lived. The Wikipedia biography shows the truth.
My sign in name is truehistory, and for Mrs. Baker's help with correcting my English, I thanked her with initials jvb, and then sign my initial a at the end. So it might seem we share the account but we do not. We have worked together to get information, but she has no password, she has no decision about what I decide or do not decide what to edit or post. It is MY account. Not OUR account. I hope I have responded correct and respectfully. A. M.==truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I was just checking. What you said at the AfD made it sound like more than one person was using the account. Apologies for any upset. Fences&Windows 17:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=You are welcome. I got too emotion about this and going to quit now. Got carry away because i know this woman, a good person. Done everything I can to show who Baker is, I have other things to do! truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I now have clear evidence that the account is shared. See this edit,[2] and this webpage:[3]. The editor claims to be the owner of the dog Suzi; this dog is Baker's dog. Yet you claim to be Allan Mattson. Sharing an account is blockable - do you have an explanation? Fences&Windows 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==Man, after I explained it to you, and you apologized, you decide to keep on going? I repeat "We have worked together to get information, but she has no password, she has no decision about what I decide or do not decide what to edit or post." Your "clear evidence" is I let her edit what I wrote about service dogs because she has a service dog and she was teaching me by using that article. My bad, I asked her help. She showed me how to download a photo. not easy the first time (for me, anyway). I did let her write a big biography, with a different encyclopedia, about Oswald, using my ID because I didn't think it made a difference what name was used somewhere else. But she has no password here and there will be no more direct help, since you think we are a team (not). But this brings to me a new idea. I will ask Baker to get an account here. Then we can both write on an article, but because it is separate accounts, no problems anymore, correct? What I joke about. I want to get some peace and quiet now. truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was that I came across an article on Baker's non-notable literary theory after seeing a reference to it on one of her blogs when reading more about her story. I then checked the editing history of the account, and came across the edits to the Service dog page. The edit summary was "I am the visually impaired owner of 'Suzi,', which is why I have had to return and correct this page so much. Sorry!". That is not an edit summary that makes it appear as though anyone else but Baker was editing at the time. You'll be left in peace and quiet when you edit according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. One person, one account, it's that simple. Fences&Windows 13:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==One person, one account is what I do have, %$#@! Can't you read? She edited the dog article in beginning when I first got started, to teach me, and I already told you that, so why did you go back there and then pretend you discovered it? Then use that as an excuse to tell me we share the account, when I told you it didn't happen after the beginning, after the first couple articles, that I learned? She apologized for typos as she can't see the small type here. So I had to fix them, it was OK because I was learning. I don't make a million typos like she does. Can't you tell the difference? But you still went back to the beginning, even after I told you I learned and now I am independent. OK, you want to drive me away, and you never stop. I was just trying to help make Wikipedia a little better and I guess 150 edits means nothing, but there would have been many more useful ones. Also, a chance for me to develop better English. Be proud of yourself. I believe if this Mrs. Baker was not a problem, you would not go jumping down my throat over and over. But you will keep on to doomsday. Hej, då. ==truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't pretend anything. I'm not intending to drive you away from Wikipedia, please do continue to contribute. Editors here may be able to advise on editing with impaired vision:Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility Fences&Windows 00:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==Yes you pretended, and intended, why else did you write impaired vision help offer? I don't have impaired vision, she does. So you show your underwear. I only came back to say Sorry I added Categories Artist, Writer, Poet to Baker's thing, which I did in good faith, because I thought it was just description. Because there was Living Persons, only has to be alive to be in the Category. So artist just had to be artist I thought. Not have to be Notable. Far as I am concerned, she can keep my email address and use my name, rest of her life. Go look me up, you will see I am real. God knows who you are. Your arrogance and your rudeness is why I am leaving. truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing here at cross purposes. The comment about impaired vision was so you could pass that on to Ms Baker, not some attempt at a dig. I'm sorry that what was meant as assistance came across as an attack, my comment was too concise and I failed to explain that the accessibility project info wasn't directed at you personally. I've explained why I questioned about account sharing, and I apologise that things got heated at the article for deletion discussion. As to who I am, all the info on my user page is accurate, so you can get a sense for my political beliefs, background, philosophy and likes. I choose to edit under a pseudonym, but not for any nefarious purpose. It's very common for Wikipedia editors to prefer to remain unnamed.

I saw your note at the article talk page that I'd proposed for deletion. Yes, quotes from Jimmy Wales about "all human knowledge" are damn misleading. Sorry to Ms. Baker that the content isn't suitable for Wikipedia; it would save new editors a lot of time, effort and grief if the aims of Wikipedia were more widely known, and if Jimbo didn't make daft statements in the media.

Regarding adding categories, that had no bearing on the deletion discussion, so you didn't do anything wrong by adding categories; don't worry about that. What it hinged on was WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO.

I've got no intention at all of driving you away from Wikipedia; I might be tenacious, but I don't actually bite. If you think that in my interactions with you I have broken guidelines at WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT, then I apologise, and you can file a report at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. If you would like an editor to help you with editing - I'm obviously not going to being able to! - there is a project called Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. If you'd prefer an environment where everyone says who they are upfront, and which relies more on personal knowledge than on digging out sources, Citizendium might be ideal.

I'll leave you alone now. Fences&Windows 01:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Evangelist All 2008

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Evangelist All 2008, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Not a notable literary work, nor a notable genre of literature.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fences&Windows 20:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=Not my business, do as you please.=truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]