User talk:Xcommunic8

Re: Jordan Maxwell

Your recent edits could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 11:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Maxwell Article

I am not sure if I am making the right moves here. This site and all it's rules are very confusing at times.

I am writing on behalf of Jordan, who asked me to, to ask if you could please take down the "court judgments" section of this page. I have withdrawn all threat of legal action, and you have my apologies for getting a little heated about this.

It is not my intention to make enemies here. Not at all. I think wiki is a wonderful source of information, and I have used it quite often.

What I am concerned about is the fact that this part of the article is not completely researched. Yes charges were brought against Jordan because at the time he was using Vic's website, completely offered by Vic, to post some of his material. This made him a co contributor to the website, but only in respect to his own writings. The rest of the material was Vic's.

Jordan is now aging, and has often mentioned how distressed he is, as anyone would be, that his name is being dragged through the mud. He has spent the last 50 years as a researcher, and has never had anything to do with credit checks and what not. That was all Vic's thoughts.

A background check of any kind, would show that Jordan has never associated with anything illegal like this previous to that incident, and I should think that if he was a charletan, or in any way inclined to that kind of behaviour, that he would have tried it long before that and since.

Jordan is a kind and caring man. I know this from personal experience. Some of his views are not considered mainstream, true, but those are his beliefs and he has a right to them. I do not in any way suggest that the rest of the article is false or misleading. He has researched many things in his life, many areas, because of his love of learning and discovery.

Whether one agrees with his ideas or not, should he not be able to ask for the removal of material that is, in fact, false.

Should it not be removed even if there is a possibility of it being false? It is bringing his name into disrepute, and being such a large entry on the page, it is clearly outweighing the rest of the material that has been researched for over 50 years.

It looks like an expose of a man who has been defrauding the world for all of his life. This is not fair or even. His association with Vic is something that Jordan no doubt regrets deeply, but should that small blip in the context of a long and distinguished life dedicated, not to making a fast buck, but to research in his fields of interest smear his entire life's work?

As I have mentioned Jordan is an old man now, and has nothing but his dignity. Should that be taken from him, when he is clearly, in every other occasion before and after Vic's fiasco, not interested in fraudulent documents of any kind? He has made his life's work a study in researching documents very carefully, never putting any opinion forward without having the documented research to back it up.

Vic took advantage of Jordan's good name by offering to allow Jordan to post some of his work on his website, which Jordan agreed to because he is not savvy with the workings of websites or computers. Jordan now has his own website and there is no mention of anything but researched material, and very well researched at that.

All I am asking is that a good man's reputation be left intact. Surely if there is even the remotest possibility that he is completely innocent, and was clearly taken advantage of, that part of the article should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xcommunic8 (talk • contribs) 21:09, June 23, 2007 – Please sign your posts!

Provide evidence he is innocent and it will be added to his article, but the court case stays; Wikipedia is not censored. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 08:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this one section of the article that important to you? It is very distressing for Jordan. Is that not enough? Who am I speaking to by the way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xcommunic8 (talk • contribs) 04:53, June 24, 2007 – Please sign your posts!

Don't start a duplicate section when one already exists. The entire article is "important" (relatively) to me. I don't care if this section is distressing for Jordan. Again, Wikipedia is not censored. Provide evidence for his aquittal and add it to the section. You are talking to me, obviously--note the signature (which you need to learn how to do) and click on the name, if you like: ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eep

I can see that you don't care for other peoples feelings. You have been clearly abusive to other editors, on a consistent basis. Your rap sheet is long and full of warnings. I don't understand why you haven't been banned for life for abusive behaviour. You carry on like you are judge and executioner, and Eep, you are far far from that. Please remove the offensive part of the article. Not because you are cowtowing to me or anyone else, but for the sake of humanity.

````

I'm abusive to those who abuse me, as you are beginning to do with you calling me Natalie (huh?), misspelling my name (as "Eeg"), and now still not signing your posts correctly (with "~~~~", not "````"). Besides the fact that you reverted restoration of legitimately sourced material on Maxwell's page, your inability to provide proof of his aquittal (and then claiming I don't care about Maxwell (and then extrapolating that out to everyone), plus your inability at reading comprehension makes me question your motives, causes me to feel as if you are abusing me. So, get a clue and cease and desist or I start adding warning notices here, which will draw attention from admins, dig? This isn't about me, but you, and your lack of following Wikipedia rules. Yes, I've had (and have) issues with some of its policies/guidelines, but providing references/sources isn't one of them (anymore). I suggest you learn the rules if you want to play the Wikipedia game. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 16:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listing on BLPN

I've listed the page Jordan Maxwell on the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. Over the next few weeks it will receive extra attention from editors and should improve. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou so much Bob, I am new to editing here and had no idea what to do ;about this.

````

Reading the sources, the court judgments section will probably stay even after review as it has a number of sources backing it. Unless sources contradicting it are found, it will probably stay more or less as it is. After all, it correctly describes what happened in the court case (regardless of the truth). Wikipedia can't judge people's guilt or innocence: we can only report what others have said. If Varjabedian or Maxwell have made statements on this (for example to a newspaper), we can include their point of view on the matter. --h2g2bob (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]