User talk:Jalusbrian

Welcome!

Hello, Jalusbrian, 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! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Desiree Jennings controversy

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Desiree Jennings controversy. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desiree Jennings controversy. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

No doubt some editors here want to suppress information that they don't like. In fact, it's like a constant war. Welcome to the real world.

Note that deletion removes all history, including on your user contributions list. FX (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just some random editors: here is Wade Frazier: ' Somewhat surprisingly, among the worst offenders were Wikipedia's administrators. It was not long before all of our additions were deleted, and the article is now almost back where it started, but at least the killing of three invading “pioneers” by the Indians is no longer on the list as a “massacre” (although as few as five whites killed by Indians still qualifies as a massacre on that list).' http://www.ahealedplanet.net/wikimass.htm Jalusbrian (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please add to the discussion

Wikipedia is not a forum for you to express your opinions WP:Forum. It is an encyclopedia. Please help us make the encyclopedia better by contributing positively. You are currently being quite rude to other editors and accusing them of being part of conspiracy WP:Goodfaith Zuchinni one (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia at all, as it has no quality control. People can add and remove whatever they like, and ive seen quality info removed leaving pages decidely misleading. Positive contributions, esp on controversial topics are removed if they offend the political sensibilities of 'editors'.

Jalusbrian (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Coconut oil

Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.

Please take a close look at WP:TALK, especially WP:TALKNO. --Ronz (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry these warnings have caused you so much concern. If you'd like someone to review the situation, there are a few ways to do so as described on WP:DR. I suggest WP:THIRD. I'd be happy to write up such a request. --Ronz (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well threats by nameless 'authorities' do sound alarming. Your page says you are not an administrator...and its clear your hardly an unbiased poster Jalusbrian (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's alarming, but true. You'll find as you learn more about Wikipedia that being an administrator just means you have a few more tools. --Ronz (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ive learned this about Wikipedia

'Wikipedia is often regarded as similar to (if not actually) an encyclopedia. But an encyclopedia is a source of reliable information and a record of what is known on various topics. This claim by, or on behalf of, Wikipedia is fallacious. Instead of enabling the presentation of all the evidence relating to any controversial topic (such as one or another genocide, or the question of which group was actually responsible for the events of 9/11), some Wikipedia editors censor anything which is inconsistent with a view of the world that they wish everyone else would accept. This is presumably done to further the aims of the group to which these editors belong, and to whom (it seems) lying in the service of (what they regard as) a "higher cause" is considered acceptable.'Jalusbrian (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ive also leared that Wikipedia keeps a black list...'Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist. ' Which is ironic given Wikipedias very unprofessional behaviour... Jalusbrian (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless electronic devices and health ‎

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles . Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:MV Mavi Marmara‎

You need to stop using the talk page to express your personal views. If you want something to be adjusted in an article the first step is to present sources and limit any soapboxing. You have been given plenty of notice. It looks like this came up above. Basically the next step if you continue would be a request being made at the Administrator's Noticeboard for incidents. There you will likely receive a warning and possibly a block to encourage a quicker understanding of hiw things are supposed to work around here.Cptnono (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and who are you? AS for sources...Wikipedia editors often have a poor understanding of sourcing Jalusbrian (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk page as well. Sourcing isn't the issue. Either use therm or don't but continued use of the talk page as a soapbox will be dealt with.Cptnono (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you need to pay attention..Wikis problem is not commentary in the talkback, but the corruption in ther main articles. No encyclopedia would allow what happens on wiki unnamed persons with no background in the topic creating editing biased articles...Ive see it happen over and over Jalusbrian (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you feel that way or not. The only concern I have with you at the moment is the continued disruption on talk pages. Cptnono (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AND i dont care for your incivility..nor your use of wiki to air your persoanl views. Jalusbrian (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

Talk:Mark Arbib

Hi there - you're of course more than welcome to post on the talk page if you have problems with the article, but please do so without making contentious allegations that the subject of the article has engaged criminal activity/treason etc. Our policy on biographies of living persons forbids it. --Mkativerata (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i think thats ironic as Mark Arbib was engaged in treasonous activities...and is part of a govt calling Assange treasonable. Its hardly contentious, as he had no business discussing australian political matters with the americans. Arbib was also involved in the treasonable ousting of PM Kevin Rudd, which act shows signs of american involvement behind the scenes. Jalusbrian (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not forum

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Vaxxed for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC) and who are u? you do realise the wiki on VAXXED is very politicised,shaped to attack the docmentary and its maker. ````[reply]