User talk:Cyberclops

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your 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!

The article you created, United States Treason Laws, appears to be a copy-paste of primary source material. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which contains information about sources, but not the sources themselves. If you'd like to contribute to a collection of primary sources, Wikisource might be a better option. Best, shoy (^words _words) 00:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Republican Party (United States). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Republican Party (United States). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gwernol 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a 24 hour block on this account for violating the three revert rule at Republican Party (United States) per Gwernol's explicit warning above. Kuru ^talk 01:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message opn my talk page. Unfortunately, your edit is pure speculation designed to imply a link between Republicans and satanists where there is none. It is completely unacceptable and breaches two of Wikipedia's core policies: it is completely unverifiable and clearly expresses your own point of view. Pleae do not add such inappropriate material to articles in the future. Thanks, Gwernol 12:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is no way you can include the material you are proposing. If I went to the Hillary Clinton page, for example, and added "Although people say that she is Satan don't worry, its not true" that would clearly be highly prejudicial. You simply can't include ridiculous rumors about (in this case) the Republican Party and make it okay by adding "oh, but its not really true" afterwards. Every major subject has some crank somewhere who says they're the tools of the devil, or actually reptilian overlords or whatever. We don't legitimize these kind of fringe views in articles - please see our policy on not giving undue wieght to fringe theories.

The only way you could include this is if you have multiple, independent, published sources that say it. For example, if an article in the New York Times commented on this fringe view, it might be possible to include it with appropriate careful wording. Otherwise its just your own original research.

The Manson situation is completely different. There are multiple reliable sources that say that what Manson carved in his forehead was the Nazi swastika and in fact that he intended a connection to the Nazi party. There are no reliable sources (unless you can find them) to suggest that the stars in the Republican logo are in any way connected to Satanism. Your implication that the stars are meant as an allusion to Satanism is misleading and unsourced.

Similarly your suggestion of adding ""As shown at the top of this page, the modern mascot symbol is a red elephant with a blue back that contains three inverted pentagrams (stars with two points up). Satanists use stars with two points up, often inscribed in a double circle, with the head of a goat inside the pentagram."" is original research: drawing a conclusion where none exists. You need a reliable source that draws that conclusion for you before we could even consider adding something like that to the article. Even then you'd need to make sure that the source was reliable and then discuss it on the article's talk page to reach a consensus with other editors of the article. I have no ideas what your reference to "satisfying the masses" is meant to mean, but I have clearly laid out how you could satisfy Wikipedia's policies.

By the way, none of this is motivated by my politics: you have no idea what my political views are, so how exactly do you think you have divined my political views in all this? Gwernol 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No that would not be acceptable. The problem is that there is no evidence to suggest a connection between the stars on the Republican logo and Satanism. Unless you have a reliable, independent, verifiable source that makes a connection between the stars on the Republican logo and Satanists symbols, you simply cannot imply any sort of connection: its your own original research. The Republican Party logo is taken from the American flag: the stars are a reference to the Flag of the United States and certainly not to satanism. To add your implication to the article would be a serious breach of original research and the neutral point of view. If you do that, or take any of the other steps you propose your edits will be reverted and if you continue to make them after this warning you will be blocked for disruption. By the way, Wikipedia articles are not adequate references for other Wikipedia articles. Please actually read Wikipedia's policies: WP:V and WP:NPOV. Thanks, Gwernol 20:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest suggestion is: "As shown at the top of this page, the modern mascot symbol is a red elephant with a blue back that contains three inverted pentagrams (stars with two points up)." The elephant logo has three stars on it, not "inverted pentagrams" - again that's your interpretation of the logo, not a properly sourced opinion. If you can find an independent, published source that describes them as inverted pentagrams, you can discuss adding that on the article's talk page. Otherwise you cannot. If you got down to a truly neutral statement: "As shown at the top of this page, the modern symbol is an elephant with red and blue stripes showing three white stars" it would not be worth putting that in, since it is just a literal description of the image and adds nothing that looking at the image does not. Gwernol 21:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pentagram is a "a five-pointed, star-shaped figure made by extending the sides of a regular pentagon until they meet, used as an occult symbol by the Pythagoreans and later philosophers, by magicians, etc." [1] so it does have exactly the kind of connotations you have been trying to push into the article. Star has many meanings, not simply "celestial body" including a "a conventionalized figure usually having five or six points radiating from or disposed about a center." [2]. You simply cannot use a term like "pentagram" because of its connotations unless you can find multiple, independent, published sources that say these particular star are specifically pentagrams. When you have that evidence, present it on the talk page of the Republic Party article for discussion and consideration of other editors there. Thanks, Gwernol 02:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Gwernol[edit]

Hi Cyberclops. Give it a break there, would you? Gwernol has already explained why you were out of line with our policies. Please don't continue to hassle him about your wish to include material that breaches WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Instead, ask yourself what you can best contribute to our encyclopedia, bearing in mind that we need copyeditors and researchers more than we need political opinion. Please don't keep on at one editor; there may be policy pages where these things are discussed that will offer you more success, though I doubt it. Let me know if you need more suggestions. --John (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:AmerMccain-gothic-thumb.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:AmerMccain-gothic-thumb.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:AmerMccain-gothic-large42.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:AmerMccain-gothic-large42.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:EmpireHollywood1.JPG[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Hi Cyberclops!
We thank you for uploading Image:EmpireHollywood1.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot.

--John Bot III (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:EmpireHollywood2.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Hi Cyberclops!
We thank you for uploading Image:EmpireHollywood2.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot.

--John Bot III (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009[edit]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Walt Disney. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]