User talk:Bf20204

Welcome, Bf20204!

I'm NuclearWarfare, and I noticed that you haven't been welcomed yet, so I thought I'd drop you a note. We do have a lot of users, and are currently working on 6,923,046 articles, so things can be a little intimidating... but don't worry! We love to help out, and we'll try our best to make your stay here as comfortable as possible.
Here are a few links I found useful when I first arrived here:-

Be Bold!
Don't let grumpy users scare you off
Policies, guidelines, and rules
How to create a page, edit a page and write a great article
A handy tutorial, and a picture tutorial

You should sign your name on talk pages, discussions and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. Also, if you don't want to jump right into editing articles right now, why not check out the sandbox? Feel free to make test edits there.

I know it's a lot of information, but there are two more things I recommend you take note of while editing Wikipedia - cite references wherever possible, and avoid allowing personal biases interfere with your editing.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian - I definitely do. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or problems, leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll try my best to help. Otherwise, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We hope you stick around, and make sure you enjoy yourself! Cheers, NuclearWarfare (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

I believe that the "Joining the Foreign Service" section of the "United States Foreign Service" has in effect been vandalized by those members of the Foreign Service who wish to rewrite history and omit certain historical events such as Taylor vs Rice. I believe that I have cited as much as I can possibly can regarding the events surrounding Taylor v Rice. I do not believe that this section should be deleted as it is factual and backed up by cited court documents.

I have reverted the edits you made. This was based upon the edit summary you made on A-100 class. The summary makes it appear that the information you added to that article was original research. Based on that and the look of your other edits, I reverted them also because they appear to be original research also. If you make substatial edits to articles about the State Department I would recommend you provide references from reliable sources, that way there is no doubt they are not original research. Jons63 (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should assume good faith in the actions of the other editors on Wikipedia not accuse them of rewriting history. They are complying with Wikipedia policies on original research. I assumed as a new editor you did not know Wikipedia's policy on no original research when I first removed your edits and I explained my reasoning and the policy to you. Now you do know the policy and if you continue adding the information it can be construed as vandalism. Jons63 (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I received your email asking why I am editing your your entries on articles. I think I have explained here why I am removing the information. But just to reiterate, Wikipedia's policies do not allow original research and all the edits I have seen you make so far appear to be original research. I believe you when you say you took part in the Roadmap for peace and the A-100 class so no I don't need to see your resume. If you were to publish a whitepaper you would still not be able update the information into Wikipedia, because it would still be your original research. Now someone else could use that information and update the articles because it would not be their research and they would just be reporting what others have said. Jons63 (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to A-100 Class. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Jons63 (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Coalition Provisional Authority, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jons63 (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I am writing is not "Original Research." I was a witness to these events. Why do my facts have to be cited? If I wrote an article on White Supremacy and cited a bunch of website from White Supremacists, according to your argument that article would be fine because it is not "original research." I'm changing back my edits. If you want to try to block me, go for it. You are no better than North Korea or Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bf20204 (talk • contribs)

You said in one of your edit summaries: I was a witness to these events. This is not "original research." If I saw someone being killed would I not be able to talk about it on Wikipedia because it is "original research?" That is the very definition of original research. You witnessed something and have no source to back up this information. Wikipedia does not allow information that you get from first hand experience unless you have a reliable source to back up the information. I am going to revert them once again per Wikipedia policies. If you place them back into the articles again I will notify an administrator that you refuse to follow the policies. The administrator will determine whether you should be blocked or not. Jons63 (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as a side note, you could talk about someone who you saw killed if you could find a reliable source that discusses it so the information is verifiable. If there are no reliable source then no it is not appropriate to put it on Wikipedia. That is the policy of Wikipedia and if you do not agree with that policy you have two options. 1. Go to the policy page that you disagree with and discuss it to make changes to the policy. 2. Find somewhere else to publish you information. Jons63 (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have said multiple times that you were present at events. Have you read the policy Wikipedia:No original research? If you haven't here is a sentence out of the policy: This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. You might want to consider that sentence before putting the information back into the articles. Jons63 (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of WP:OUTING, see here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 17:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice.

Hello, Bf20204. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Tim Song (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: John_Kokal

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that John_Kokal meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John_Kokal. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Bevinbell 23:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

editing

Looks like you want to be active editing again, even though you previously stated that you were done. Well, feel free to edit - but do not attempt to out me, use sockpuppets, or do other odd things as folks will be watching your edits to make sure this stays an encyclopedia. As for disclosures, feel free to write whatever you want about yourself on your talk page. Bevinbell 23:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use sockpuppets? And you are an actual Foreign Service Officer? I'm not even going to respond to such a silly addition to my talk page. Bf20204 (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kokal

Look Bf20204, i and most of the serious regular editors at Wikipedia are not in the slightest bit interested in the personal or emotional involvement editors/authors have with their subject matter. All we want is a clean encyclopedia. However noble your motives are for wanting an article about Kokal here, if it does not meet the criteria for inclusion, it gets deleted. End of story. There is no debate here over whether Kokal was a good chap and didn't deserve to have his mysterious death covered up like it was.

What you are now doing to the main page is vandalism because we know you know the rules, and your edits have been reverted. This is a friendly warning rather than a template that will be logged by the software; I'm trying to argue for keeping the Kokal article but not for any of the reasons you have cited, so just please let the AfD debate run its course otherwise not only will you end up getting your self blocked again, but it won't bode well with the other editors who will decide on the outcome of your article. --Kudpung (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know where to put the comment section. I'm still a novice when it comes to Wikipedia HTML Code. I appreciate your edit. Thanks.Bf20204 (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know too much about Wikipedia Editing Culture. I think I've said everything that I want to say regarding the entry. I also don't want an emotional entry. I want a factual entry. I delegated any emotion to the talk page. The problem I have is that it is really hard to find any factual information concerning John Kokal. Bf20204 (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]