User talk:Richard Warren Lipack
Edits to Tila Tequila
[edit]I don't know why you claim that you cannot contact other editors. For now, click right here and type right under this message to talk to me. I've temporarily turned off you ability to edit Tila Tequila. The material you are adding looks to be a long opinion piece. It would go against our polices to allow material like that to be added.—Kww(talk) 23:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Re: New data incorporating documentation of current direction of Tila Tequila Nguyen's life & pursuits
[edit]I apologize for reverting your edits, which I misidentified as vandalism, and will not do that again. Unfortunately I'm not the right person answer all of your questions you left on my talk page (I didn't even know of Quickiwiki!), but regarding the following:
Or can I edit AFTER AUGUST 1st. UNDER MY OTHER NAME REGISTRATION OF "EPOCHWIKI77" I am at THAT level - so should I just edit this post using that handle?
- Yes, you can edit the article with your other account. It is not just you who are blocked from editing the article until August 1st, but everyone who doesn't have the Autoconfirmed status. If you need any more help with editing, I recommend placing the text "{{helpme}}" on your talk page (this page), and someone should soon come here. I also recommend you to check out the help pages. Again, sorry for reverting your edits (they aren't gone - you can still find them in the page history). Happy editing. Ginsuloft (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
July 2013
[edit]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Re: Re: New data incorporating documentation of current direction of Tila Tequila Nguyen's life & pursuits
[edit]Here are answers to some of your questions.
Thank you for getting back to me on this issue regarding the post. Now, are what you are saying - is it such that AFTER August 1st the posting goes back to it original status and anybody without the "Auto-confirmed" status can edit the post? Is it just this 7-8 day period that it is off limits? But I can use my EPOCHWIKI77 right now with "Auto-confirmed" status and start right in to edit.
You are indeed correct, yes.
Also, if you are not assigned the post, will some other editor see our correspondence and see what has all happened and leave me alone? Would it look like I would be hit with 'VANDALISM' again - if some other editor get to evaluate this?
They should notice it normally, but if they don't, post on their talk page as it will alert them with "you have new messages" (notice how you get this when I post on your talk page). Any message will do, like "please investigate my recent edits further", just make sure you get their attention and everything will be fine.
Also, as you can see, I have maybe 50-60 source links (over half to WIKIPEDIA links as well), after most special words or for specific quotes or sources. Are a lot of these links sufficient as they stands? Or should I also cite REFERENCES - i.e "<ref>" as well - so the references post at the bottom of the page as well? It is very difficult to do this as these are predominately ALL INTERNET sources, which are sometimes rather very non specific as to identifiers - whereas books or magazines are more specific,
References are very important especially for such a large piece of contribution. I recommend you add a lot of external references, whether it be internet or books, as internal Wikipedia links don't suffice as references. This is why I reverted your edits so quickly. Normally if an edit is properly cited, I leave it alone. Your contribution was extremely long and improperly cited. The only external references I saw weren't really reliable sources. Make sure you refer to reliable sources and avoid internal Wikipedia links as sources. You said you can refer to books - these are very good sources and make your contribution look a lot more authentic.
Is it ABSOLUTELY necessary to at "<ref>" or can I just add a few that are somewhat easy to do or are which I can format properly - as some will be very difficult as I have said.
I'm afraid it is necessary yes, for such a long contribution.
ALSO - can I still be hit with a non-humanoid "BOT" if I start in again to edit?
You shouldn't, but if you do, you can revert it as patrolling bots will only revert once per article and editor. Still, your edit doesn't look like it should warrant a false positive.
Regards, Ginsuloft (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Kevin - I hope that this can be read by you. FLYER 22 reverted my Tila Tequila post and I can not contact them no matter what I do to make contact. The same goes for you. I can not make contact with you for some reason. All contact protocols will not come up for me.
This here is one way I hope that I can make contact.
This is my email address which I hope you will respond to so we can discuss this; dstatler2@echoback.com. I can not even contact you. All contact protocols for you and FLYER22 do not seem to work and no box to write messages in comes up EVER! THE QUICKIWIKI default is causing all kinds of problems connecting it seems, as it is a MIRROR PIRATE site to Wikipedia - which even my first editor on this post GINSULOFT was unaware of! Please email me - so I can discuss this issue with you. Also, why have you contacting me instead FLYER22 - who did the revert?
Please advise and contact me in some way where we can discuss this intelligently.
I am not writing about Illuminati Conspiracy Theories, but I am writing about Tila Tequila - who is now predominately an activist by here own admission, all back-up up with links and proper references. Please read the post and look at the links and references and please contact me at dstatler2@echoback.com.
Thank you.
Richard Warren LipackRichard Warren Lipack (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Edits to Tila Tequila
[edit]I don't know why you claim that you cannot contact other editors. For now, click right here and type right under this message to talk to me. I've temporarily turned off you ability to edit Tila Tequila. The material you are adding looks to be a long opinion piece. It would go against our polices to allow material like that to be added.—Kww(talk) 23:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Re: New data incorporating documentation of current direction of Tila Tequila Nguyen's life & pursuits
[edit]I apologize for reverting your edits, which I misidentified as vandalism, and will not do that again. Unfortunately I'm not the right person answer all of your questions you left on my talk page (I didn't even know of Quickiwiki!), but regarding the following:
Or can I edit AFTER AUGUST 1st. UNDER MY OTHER NAME REGISTRATION OF "EPOCHWIKI77" I am at THAT level - so should I just edit this post using that handle?
- Yes, you can edit the article with your other account. It is not just you who are blocked from editing the article until August 1st, but everyone who doesn't have the Autoconfirmed status. If you need any more help with editing, I recommend placing the text "{{helpme}}" on your talk page (this page), and someone should soon come here. I also recommend you to check out the help pages. Again, sorry for reverting your edits (they aren't gone - you can still find them in the page history). Happy editing. Ginsuloft (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
July 2013
[edit] Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Re: Re: New data incorporating documentation of current direction of Tila Tequila Nguyen's life & pursuits
[edit]Here are answers to some of your questions.
Thank you for getting back to me on this issue regarding the post. Now, are what you are saying - is it such that AFTER August 1st the posting goes back to it original status and anybody without the "Auto-confirmed" status can edit the post? Is it just this 7-8 day period that it is off limits? But I can use my EPOCHWIKI77 right now with "Auto-confirmed" status and start right in to edit.
You are indeed correct, yes.
Also, if you are not assigned the post, will some other editor see our correspondence and see what has all happened and leave me alone? Would it look like I would be hit with 'VANDALISM' again - if some other editor get to evaluate this?
They should notice it normally, but if they don't, post on their talk page as it will alert them with "you have new messages" (notice how you get this when I post on your talk page). Any message will do, like "please investigate my recent edits further", just make sure you get their attention and everything will be fine.
Also, as you can see, I have maybe 50-60 source links (over half to WIKIPEDIA links as well), after most special words or for specific quotes or sources. Are a lot of these links sufficient as they stands? Or should I also cite REFERENCES - i.e "<ref>" as well - so the references post at the bottom of the page as well? It is very difficult to do this as these are predominately ALL INTERNET sources, which are sometimes rather very non specific as to identifiers - whereas books or magazines are more specific,
References are very important especially for such a large piece of contribution. I recommend you add a lot of external references, whether it be internet or books, as internal Wikipedia links don't suffice as references. This is why I reverted your edits so quickly. Normally if an edit is properly cited, I leave it alone. Your contribution was extremely long and improperly cited. The only external references I saw weren't really reliable sources. Make sure you refer to reliable sources and avoid internal Wikipedia links as sources. You said you can refer to books - these are very good sources and make your contribution look a lot more authentic.
Is it ABSOLUTELY necessary to at "<ref>" or can I just add a few that are somewhat easy to do or are which I can format properly - as some will be very difficult as I have said.
I'm afraid it is necessary yes, for such a long contribution.
ALSO - can I still be hit with a non-humanoid "BOT" if I start in again to edit?
You shouldn't, but if you do, you can revert it as patrolling bots will only revert once per article and editor. Still, your edit doesn't look like it should warrant a false positive.
Regards, Ginsuloft (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Kevin - I hope that this can be read by you. FLYER 22 reverted my Tila Tequila post and I can not contact them no matter what I do to make contact. The same goes for you. I can not make contact with you for some reason. All contact protocols will not come up for me.
This here is one way I hope that I can make contact.
This is my email address which I hope you will respond to so we can discuss this; dstatler2@echoback.com. I can not even contact you. All contact protocols for you and FLYER22 do not seem to work and no box to write messages in comes up EVER! THE QUICKIWIKI default is causing all kinds of problems connecting it seems, as it is a MIRROR PIRATE site to Wikipedia - which even my first editor on this post GINSULOFT was unaware of! Please email me - so I can discuss this issue with you. Also, why have you contacting me instead FLYER22 - who did the revert?
Please advise and contact me in some way where we can discuss this intelligently.
I am not writing about Illuminati Conspiracy Theories, but I am writing about Tila Tequila - who is now predominately an activist by here own admission, all back-up up with links and proper references. Please read the post and look at the links and references and please contact me at dstatler2@echoback.com.
Thank you.
Richard Warren LipackRichard Warren Lipack (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Illuminati conspiracy theories
[edit]If you continue to post Illuminati conspiracy theories as if they were factual, your account will be blocked from editing.—Kww(talk) 02:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Richard, if you want to talk to me, just edit this page and reply right after my words.—Kww(talk) 03:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- As for why I'm contacting you instead of Flyer22, it's because I agree with Flyer22: the material you have added has no place here.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kevin;
Thanks for writing back. Editor Ginsuloft has a different way of emailing him back thru Wikipedia. Your way I never heard of, but thanks for writing back and I hop this works.
Here is the issue. Tila Tequila is basically no longer in the entertainment business full time, as she was forced out of it by not succumbing to certain demands. She was supposed to appear on the Alex Jones radio show last year in late 2012, but there was a suspicious situation that happened which nobody is explaining from Jones camp - but Tila Tequila feels that the instance was a set-up to make her non-credible. Video statements and writings by her support all of this. It is NO THEORY. What happened is fact and I wrote about it as fact - because it is FACT.
Alex Jones is INTERNATIONALLY broadcasted and worldwide known - but yet is tagged a "conspiracy theorist" to try to silence him when in fact he has become the main link on the Matt DRUDGE REPORT... which is not any sort of 'conspiracy' site as you should know. He is the subject of news articles worldwide weekly. The stories he breaks first become mainstream news later. THIS IS ALL FACT.
Any way, I see that you or FLYER22 have not read my Tila Tequila post or checked any of the references. I spent over a week on this and the post is not even being read by you folks - just quickly deleted one minute after being uploaded.
This is unfair and not correct at all, nor is it professional protocol. I am not posting these FACTS as theories, but as facts with viable links and factual references and QUOTES backed up to the direct sources and videos.
EDITOR GINSULOFT was kind enough to write me about this when I couldn't resp0ond to yo because of the new QUICKIWIKI problematic default!!!!!!!!!! Please see his comments above - and he TOLD ME THAT I SHOULD BE ABLE to re-post this material if I add viable links and references, which I have copiously done.
NOW, if you look at the current WIKIPEDIA post for Tila Tequila, the last bit of "news" is from 2010. I have added all material that is current and which reflects Tequila's new life and purpose - since she was "BLACKLISTED" from Hollywood. She currently does not even live in California!
Tila Tequila has been an activist since 2010 touting what some call theory, but that is not the issue. Whatever she is doing IS WHAT SHE IS DOING - immaterial of what you or FLYER22 believe is the issue or purpose of what she is doing. You intimate that what she is doing is a CONSPIRACY THEORY! That makes NO SENSE!
Why are making a rash judgement on what Tila Tequila is doing and what course her life is currently taking? SHE IS A REAL PERSON and ALL OF THESE THINGS about her are REAL, and have happened and have been documented....... PERIOD.
I am just documenting what she IS DOING based on document links and references.
She started a new website called www.anonymousthruthblog.com last week. This is the direction she has taken which I have copiously documented with fact, links, her own videos, radio shows, and books. She is no longer in the modeling business. She has appeared in a movie recently, but that was shot 2 years ago.
Please point out to me what is 'theory' about documenting a person's changing life as I have succinctly done? I want to face my accusers her. If I need to make some changes, please point them out and I will certainly make them. I made proper improvements on GINSULOFT's recommendation and he said that you and FLYER22 should make note of it.
You are assuming that because Tila Tequila was a model, that she is still a model! That now is a THEORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last year I had made a upload revision to the WIKIPEDIA COCA COLA post with 4 pics. Earlier I had made a major revision to WILLIAM FOTHERGILL COOKE - based on a manuscript journal I discovered of his which DOCUMENTS the INVENTION of the first electronic communications system in the world (INTERNET) and I used Wikipedia to show this discovery. It has now been translated to the SPANISH WIKIPEDIA.
However, when I first posted the COCA COLA revision, the one editor on it REVERTED it, then TORE into my WILLIAM FOTHERGILL COOKE post - all for no reason!!!!!!!!!!!!! To make a long sorry short, HE APOLOGIZED and reverted everything back.
My COCA COLA story in WIKIPEDIA incidentally led to a COVER STORY on the Dr.Pemberton subject in the WALL STREET JOURNAL on Dec. 27 & 28th 2012 by the way. I wrote a book called "EPOCH MOMENTS AND SECRETS - JOHN LENNON AND THE BEATLES AT THE MIRROR OF MAN'S DESTINY." Two copies are kept at HARVARD UNIVERSITY and one is at CORNELL. Quotes from this book are widely discussed through-out the Spanish speaking world, as is my COCA COLA story on Dr. Pemberton. The story by the way was also picked-up, modified and released in the DAILY MAIL in LONDON, Ireland, India and Australia! It also make it to over 100 TV WEBSITES in the US. I can send you all the links. But the basis for the story was WIKIPEDIA - which your editor shredded recklessly and deleted at first!
Also, you can check and see my Beatles book IS CURRENTLY a part of WIKIPEDIA's ongoing Beatles STUDY PROJECT. And my BOOK "EPOCH MOMENTS AND SECRETS - JOHN LENNON AND THE BEATLES AT THE MIRROR OF MAN'S DESTINY." HAS what you say 'CONSPIRACY THEORY' all through it! IF THAT IS GOOD for a ongoing WIKIPEDIA STUDY PROJECT, why am I wrongly belittled here with threats of 'BLOCKING FROM POSTING ANYTHING' when both you and FLYER22 haven't given more than ONE MINUTE at reading my upload post revision on Tila Tequila. Now that SOUNDS like a 'CONSPIRACY'!!!!!!
You are making generalized assumptions that are unprofessional and I respectfully trust that you will now give this story revision I have submitted a proper examination that is done in a professional manner and which is based on the facts and links I have copiously submitted and not base your opinion on some preconceived "theory" you so ASSUMES exists in the context of the post that I have submitted.
Also, it should be noted that if you bother to check the current Tila Tequila WIKIPEDIA post, there are over a dozen or two dozen DEAD LINKS!!!!!!!!!!! The whole post is a complete abomination!!!!! Why is that as an editor such an abomination in this Tila Tequila post not seem to not concern you, but ASSUMING what I have done that you have not even cared to read, only concerns you in so far completely eradicating it with exhibiting virtually no professional consideration or protocols or implementing any proper evaluative procedures of any kind other than a seconds long effort to expunge?
Sincerely,
Richard Warren Lipack72.10.67.226 (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is the normal way of communicating on Wikipedia. Notice that when you press "talk" in someone's signature, it takes you to a page much like this. The way we talk is just to edit the pages to include the message. The problem is that you are treating the material posted on anonymoustruthblog.com like it has credibility. Mentioning that Tila Tequila maintains a blog where she discusses the Illuminati, dietary practices, and Atlantean history is one thing: detailing the various rants is another. Your 96K addition can be summarized in three or four sentences. The Wikipedia article about Tila Tequila is not a soapbox to promulgate her material from.—Kww(talk) 04:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Kevin;
The anonymoustruthblog.com which I note you have just gone to and looked at is a simple last minute addition I made to the uploaded Tila Tequila post, and although I mentioned the new site in the recent upload to Tila Tequila, is not the main point of discussion. I only mentioned it to you to illustrate what direction Tila Tequila has taken.
Again, you are rushing to conclusions based on preconceived notions. I respectively ask that you give me the courtesy in reading the article I wrote - because you still have not read it - judging from your comments saying - I am writing about her Blog which is only a few days old.
It is hard to understand how you are unable to assimilate this factual information.
I have documented what Tila Tequila has done with her life since 2010 and what caused her to take that path that her life has taken for her. She had been on Facebook for the last 2 years, actually - also mentioned in my story addition.
I have documented FACTUALLY with links how Tila Tequila has been kicked out of Hollywood, for exposing the mind control tactics that are used on many Hollywood stars - as an attempt of such was mad eon her. THIS STUFF IS REAL and it HAPPENED. She was the FIRST to come out with these truths, and now what she was first to speak out about, others are speaking out about it - yet she is being ridiculed - because the powers-that-be want to silence her. THIS IS REAL!
The anonymoustruthblog.com HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT!!! She did do a wonderful lead piece though on the subject in her new blog, but that is not the point here.
I HAVE DOCUMENTED PAST EVENTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED THAT HAVE FORMED A HISTORY OF TILA TEQUILA, which is completely lacking in the current post - a post now made up of now many dead links.
It is interesting to note that essentially what you are now saying is that my story isn't a 'conspiracy theory' anymore, but rather a 'Wikipedia article about Tila Tequila that is a soapbox to promulgate her material from.'
I certainly do see your NEW point here to a degree. But this is a complex story and it is a story which can not be credible unless it has the MANY facts shown and juxtaposed between each fact supported by links and references - to prove the credibility of the story.
Editor GINSULOFT told me that as long as I show proper REFERENCES, which I have, he had no real problem with the story.
Sure, I can trim down the post if that is okay with you. Work with me sand I will work with you.
The purpose of the post is to show how Tila Tequila was kicked out of the Hollywood scene for speaking out against them about a subject they PREFER should be treated as a crazy "rant" or "conspiracy theory."
Certainly I can mention that she maintains a new blog now that discusses 'Illuminati, dietary practices, and Atlantean history' as you indicate, but you are referring to the rest of my post as documenting her "rants."
I can trim it down, but I still want to document what happened to Tila Tequila and how her life took a change of course. Is that okay with you? It will still have to be more than '4 sentences' - because it is not about anonymoustruthblog.com - the which I agree, should take perhaps up to 4 sentences.
I would appreciate it if you would be more concise with your editorial criticisms and not make snap judgements based again, on you not reading my post properly. All it seemed you did was reflect on the new blog and not on the main thrust of the upload i.e. - that she was CAST OUT OF HOLLYWOOD for speaking out AFTER she was locked into a room traumatized to accepting to do demoralizing things in the entertainment business, things against her personal convictions, and came close to being part of the MK-ULTRA program.
This MK-ULTRA program is ALSO heavily documented in my book that is now in HARVARD UNIVERSITY and CORNELL. This was a govt project that started in the 1950's - was allegedly shut down in 1977 after the CIA was caught drugging children in an orphanage in Canada with LSD and a practice is still being implemented in various sectors of society. NONE OF THIS IS CONSPIRACY THEORY. Look it up! It was investigated by the Rockefeller Commission in 1977 in Congress! You are not a historian. I am...... please pre-judge and minimalize what I am seeking to write about Tila Tequila.
Work with me in a constructive manner and I will certainly work with you.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard Warren LipackRichard Warren Lipack (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I will write a concise review: none of the sources you have included pass WP:RS (and that includes links to Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles cannot use Wikipedia articles as a source). Sites like americanlivewire.com conspirazzi.com, and ladydragon.com don't even approach the source quality required to pass our policies for insertion of material in a biography.Statements like "The April 4, 2010 celebrity blog launch by Tila Tequila Nguyen of her website MissTilaOMG.com represented much more than a simple transformation beyond Nguyen's short lived TilasHotSpotDating.com", "Nguyen began discussing and disclosing something unlike she had ever done before. It seemed to be rather provocative.", "The article cleverly used a form of comparative analysis", "Nguyen has been plagued by alleged government intrusion into her life and activities", and "The attacks to silence Tila Tequila Nguyen apparently are linked to her initial MissTilaOMG.com blog post of June 6, 2010" are just a few examples of where your writing goes well outside of what could possible be included in an encyclopedia article. It's rife with value judgements, using laudatory adjectives and taking for granted that there actually are attacks to silence Tila Tequila Nyugen. There is essentially none of your contribution that has any value to an encyclopedia. If you insert it in her biography again, you will be blocked.—Kww(talk) 06:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
ANI
[edit]You are being discussed at WP:ANI#Richard Warren Lipack.—Kww(talk) 06:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC) — (Archived in ANI archive 807)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. See the IP block list for more bans and blocks. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Richard Warren Lipack (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello from Richard Warren Lipack;
It has been brought to my attention that several editors, some of which are administrators - have uniformly blocked me from participating in the Wikipedia forum under both of my Wikipedia name handles Richard Warren Lipack and Epochwiki77. I have read all of the discussions put forth by the various editors and administrators and I do understand their concerns implicitly. What is not understood is why the actions were carried out to both block me and to also revert my edits and contributions to both the William Fothergill Cooke and Coca Cola Wikipedia entries without even asking me to explain any of the various aspects of my contributions prior to conducting these actions? This seems certainly a rush to judgement, and discourteous and unprofessional as well. In fact, Newjerseyliz, one of editors brought into this discussion, repeatedly mentioned and pointed out in this forum discussion that it seemed premature for everybody to be voting on totally blocking myself, Richard Warren Lipack and reverting my edits and contributions, but not a single other editor would even discuss the issue with her. All that took place was a cumulative gang or mob mentality that just drove roughshod over myself Richard Warren Lipack, period. The reason I was not on my talk page as was pointed out was because I was away on business, and the reason I have been late to respond to these accusations and interpretations of my actions is because it take a lot of time to address all of these issues in the context of writing it all out, but here it is.
Since this discussion involves many many editors, and a long long discussion - I think the easiest and best way to proceed is to just have myself insert responses into all of what has been written below, since of course I was not properly afforded the courtesy that Newjerseyliz repeated asked for.
What I will say is that being new to the whole Wikipedia process, and trying to learn, figure out and circumnavigate through all of the operating protocols was extremely time consuming and quite an arduous task and still is, especially with all of the use of html - and the decipering of same one must overcome, and to fit it in between the text - and has led to me not being totally aware of the contribution or editing process. All of this is overwhelming and confusing to a novice contributor, in case you have forgotten.
On top of all of this, in recent weeks a hing called QuickiWiki showed up on my screen and whenever I went to a Wikipedia post, it would immediately default to QuickiWiki. I was under the impression that QuickiWiki was affiliated with Wikipedia. Thus, after I had uploaded my initial Tila Tequila contribution, the post was immediately reverted by editor Ginsuloft. His action was what I found usually always tends to happen. When I tried to contact Ginsuloft, I was always finding myself on QuickiWiki, which would not allow me any sort of window to type Ginsuloft a response. Obviously, all of this became very frustrating.
So, out of this frustration, I examined the best possible avenue that I could to communicate with Ginsuloft, and that was to put a "note" in the section of the editing page where one puts comments about one's edits, which are as follows;
1. ) (I can not write to you GINSULOFT-something wrong with Wikipedia system?PLEASE SEND ME YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS to discuss. Undid revision 565822954 by Ginsuloft
2.) (Please investigate my recent edits further & consult my discussions w/ Ginsuloft (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Revised earlier submitted post/Herewith added substantial reference links etc/QUICKIWIKI posed initial communications problems w/editors)
3.) Unable thru your system to contact FLYER22 to discuss this. PLEASE ASSIGN a contactable party to discuss. Undid revision 565819158 by Flyer22
4.) (WIKIPEDIA system blocks me from contacting GINSULOFT about his total erasure of my contribution. System glitch? Need to discuss this is depth. Undid revision 565748580 by Ginsuloft
No way of using the Wikipedia system for “Talk” because I was locked into QuickiWiki, I had no other choice but to keep reverting the entire post - just to get a "note" in. But no one was able to see this and I kept getting booted over to another editor, so more confusion and frustration set in between me and them. Obviously from your end, I was a crazed Vandal trying to commit Vandalism by myself re-posted the same contribution with not discussing it first with an editor, which was my original intention, obviously.
By this time however, Kww got a hold of the last upload and blocked me from accessing to do edits till August 1, 2013. I still was not able to write him because of the QuickiWiki default problem.
At the end of my wits, I decided to write an editor on QuickiWiki and he responded to inform me that QuickiWiki was not in any way affiliated with Wikipedia. So..... now I understood more what was going.
Finally, I discovered a little tab that reverted the QuickiWiki page back to Wikipedia and then I was able to access the "Talk" aspect of communications again, and wrote Ginsuloft lastly on July 25. 2013.
Ginsuloft was told me that he was totally 'unaware' of the QuickiWiki problem and default issue, but comforted me with good advice how to improve my Tila Tequila post and explained how I should concentrate on providing good references. I then set out for the next week or so re-writing and improving my Tila Tequila contribution, added many appropriate references and uploaded it on August 7, 2013.
The upload was picked up by Flyer22 - who quickly reverted it. When I wrote Flyer22, editor Kww ('Kevin Wayne Williams') took over and although I wrote him saying how I was more than willing to work with him, he made threats of blocking me permanently. I was planning on responding, but had to go out of town on business. When I returned, I saw that I was permanently blocked on both of my accounts and that all of my work that I had contributed to on William Fothergill Cooke and Coca Cola was removed without further ado.
Before I continue here, I think I should ask about Flyer22, who states this on her Wikipedia homepage:
“This user may sometimes share an IP address with: Halo Jerk1” - See more at: http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/User:Flyer22#sthash.VdWjvdM0.dpuf
Then on her Halo Jerk1 homepage, she states this;
“This user may sometimes share an IP address with: Flyer22” (and visa versa) - See more at: http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/User:Flyer22#sthash.VdWjvdM0.dpuf
It seems to me that Flyer22 is WP:COMPETENCE and that she is exhibiting “Using another person's account (piggybacking)” and also: “Persuading friends or acquaintances to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)” It is thought that this should be mentioned and am welcoming comments as to why she is still operating? Do we have a “double standard” in effect here? Why is it that I, Richard Warren Lipack / Epochwiki77 am being rebuked for what Flyer22 is part and parcel to?
In any event, let us move on with this:
So, after I had gotten a message from Kww, I was planning on responding to his threat of a block, but had to go out of town for a day on business. I then noticed that there was a discussion going on about my work when I returned and accessed my computer. I then accessed that page.
Considering that it was a lot of information to sift through, and that I wanted to give a proper response, I have taken a few days to work on it. Herewith that follows is that response. I have put responses to each editors and administrators points, so that all issues are addressed in running order, since all participant to this discussion gave their opinions and completely disallowed my input before I was totally blocked and found my work to William Fothergill Cooke and Coca Cola deleted.
Before we go to my responses and discussion. I do feel that although I am new to the Wikipedia 'process,' which to me is still somewhat confusing as to its protocols, I happen to be a world-class accomplished writer of the highest order. I am not saying this to boast. I am just saying this as a fact. What is probably surprising to all, and I hate to say this, but I am more qualified to contribute my writing to Wikipedia than any and all of those editors and administrators who prejudged me and blocked me and diffused my writing contributions. Apparently, according to the world of academia, all of you editors and administrators who have attacked me should be learning and studying their craft from somebody who knows how to properly write instead of discouraging him and lambasting him. Editors are supposed to work with a writer, not castrate him.
Please note as well, that what is about to be revealed, is that all of the 'citations' I have received are for precisely the same type of content and material that I reflected on in the Tila Tequila contribution that was so viciously attacked and for which when aligned against my other posts; William Fothergill Cooke and Coca Cola - both works which were attacked and for which I was further attacked and insulted in a totally unwarranted and discourteous manner.
Please look at the following links if you would be so kind. The first shown is on the WorldCat.org web link, claiming that my 1996 book; "Epoch Moments and Secrets - John Lennon and the Beatles at the Mirror of Man's Destiny" (ISBN 0-9650959-1-6), has citations in five (5) different books on writing styles published between 2003 and 2009, as shown. This is in addition to quotes taken from my 1996 book Richard Warren Lipack published, used by other authors reproduced overseas and through-out Europe and South America, many years after the 1996 Richard Warren Lipack book was published. These five (5) links that in following show the specific aspects of each of the five (5) published world-class citations that the WorldCat.org link claims that the Richard Warren Lipack has received. They are for the 1996 dated book that Richard Warren Lipack wrote, edited, typeset and self-published. It is for the only book Richard Warren LIpack ever wrote;
Please note that according to the website www.worldcat.org; "WorldCat is the world's largest library catalog." Now here is the WorldCat.org post;
Scrolling down to the bottom of the above page link will show five (5) small tabs, each which allows the viewer to go to the further links that reveal the nature of the specific works that the Richard Warren Lipack is stated by the WorldCat.org link to have citations in;
Let's have a look first here at the "Psychological Writing Guide," which WorldCat.org claims a citation for the 1996 Richard Warren Lipack book "Epoch Moments and Secrets - John Lennon and the Beatles at the Mirror of Man's Destiny" (ISBN 0-9650959-1-6),
Now here is the source of my citation claimed by WorldCat.org to be found in the "Chicago Manual of Style." Please have a look see if would you be so kind.
http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=ti%3Achicago+manual+of+style&fq=+dt%3Abks+%3E&qt=citation-ref
Further to this, the Richard Warren Lipack work is claimed by WorldCat.org to have citation in the "Harvard Law Association Blue Book" as well. Are any Wikipedia editors that blocked Richard Warren Lipack aware of this? It is highly doubtful. Are there any Wikipedia editors cited in any of these guides? Please offer corrections, but it is sincerely doubted.
The WorldCat.org also claims that I have a citation in the "Handbook for Writers of Research Papers:"
Of course, since the 1996 Richard Warren Lipack book is held by major world-class libraries, in particular Harvard, Cornell and the University of Toronto, WorldCat.org claims a citation for the 1996 Richard Warren Lipack book in a guide for writing college term papers, etc. called "Turabian" - found at this link;
Are any Wikipedia editors or administrators who blocked and insulted the integrity and work by Richard Warren Lipack familiar with this publication? It is quite doubtful. Are any Wikipedia editors and administrators who ripped Richard Warren Lipack to shreds and engaged in supporting the insult levied by Tarc stating that the work by Richard Warren Lipack consisted of "semi-literate tinfoil rants" at all aware the WorldCat.org actually supports my published work which to one with a limited mind-set would be misconstrued as "semi-literate tinfoil rants" - when in fact they are obviously not? It is highly doubtful.
It is said 'obviously not' because obviously Harvard University, Cornell University, the University of Toronto, Kennessaw College, Indiana University and the Bavarian State Library in Germany, among others - have the Richard Warren Lipack book on hand. Here are those links for any possible doubters amongst the ranks of Wikipedia editors and administrators herewith - showing the catalog entries for same, with the main WorldCat.org link of some of the major libraries that the 1996 book Richard Warren Lipack published are found in;
Now here are the direct links specifically showing the actual websites of major libraries world-wide where the book: "Epoch Moments and Secrets - John Lennon and the Beatles at the Mirror of Man's Destiny" (ISBN 0-9650959-1-6), by Richard Warren Lipack is cataloged for use by university students and academics;
(University of Toronto) http://search.library.utoronto.ca/UTL/index?N=0&Nr=p_oclc_id:37579283
(Indiana University) http://iucat-alt.iu.edu/uhtbin/cgisirsi/X/0/0/5/?searchdata8=ocm37579283
(BAVARIAN STATE LIBRARY) https://opacplus.bsb-muenchen.de/metaopac/search?oclcno=643330146
(Kennesaw College) https://gil.kennesaw.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&BOOL1=as+a+phrase&FLD1=Keyword+Anywhere+%28GKEY%29&CNT=50&SL=None&SAB1=ocm37579283
Now let's have a look at the review of the 1996 Richard Warren Lipack self-published book "Epoch Moments and Secrets: John Lennon and the Beatles at the Mirror of Man's Destiny" (ISBN 0-9650959-1-6), and what most in the Wikipedia forum accept in a wonton manner and identify as “conspiracy rants” claimed by Newjerseyliz and "semi-literate tinfoil rants" - so claimed by Tarc; the latter being one who appears to have a limited enlightenment with respect to the way things actually are in the world with regard to what the world of academia clearly accepts as fact.
Please note that the main crux of the complaints against the work contributed to Wikipedia by Richard Warren Lipack are all part and parcel to the same issues being discussed in my heavily attacked Tila Tequila contribution - which set the unwarranted firey blaze against all of the work by Richard Warren and himself personally. These include MKUltra - which also there is a full chapter on it in the 1996 Richard Warren Lipack book. All also needs to consult the long subject entry on Wikipedia to understand that obviously, such a key topic that was part and parcel to Tila Tequila, is part and parcel on Wikipedia - and furthermore - not considered to be "semi-literate tinfoil rants." Nor was the MKUltra program considered to be "semi-literate tinfoil rants" in the 1970's when it was reviewed by the United States Congress.
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Project_MKUltra?previous=yes
If the world-class accepted work on this subject by Richard Warren Lipack is considered to be made up of "semi-literate tinfoil rants" put forth by one with such limited worldliness as that of Tarc - who shows no credentials to speak of, why does Wikipedia maintain a entry presence for MKUltra that is quite formidable in size besides? MKUltra was one of the key discussions in Tila Tequila. Certainly one would reasonably claim that this is quite a contradiction that further reflects poorly on all the editors and administrators that have viciously attacked and demonized the work of Richard Warren Lipack, a highly regarded world-recognized authority on mind control in part, and went well beyond their official function by blocking against the recommendation of NewJerseyLiz to at least allow Richard Warren Lipack to respond and 'face his accusers.'
The primary function of the editor and administrator is to act in a civil and respective manner in a forum where the one on the ‘hot seat’ being reviewed is supposed to be given proper accord. However when that function is not properly effected - particularly at the higher levels such as that of the administrator - who is supposed to offer proper metered judgement and act as an example to the rest; when that administrator reflects poor judgement as has been exhibited here in this case, particularly one Kim Dent-Brown - who in the Wikipedia system will reprimand and sanction that administrator? Such actions need to be considered for Kim Dent-Brown, for which WP:COMPETENCE is recommended here. - See more at: http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/User:Kim_Dent-Brown#sthash.VeVvDWJ4.dpuf
It seems to me that if anybody has crossed-the-line about acting outside of Wikipedia policy and acceptable civil, moral and rightfully judgement and professional conduct is that of the editors and administrators who have attacked me. For the public record they are:
Lukeno94 (an 18 year old high school student in the UK named Luke Mathew Milum), AndyTheGrump (a publisher in India who gives no name), GRuban (who provides his name as George Ruban and nothing else other than apparent expertise is that of playing video games and such), Kim Dent-Brown (a college level “researcher” and self-proclaimed Wicca practitioner residing in the UK who gives his real name), Acroterion (an administrator and also an architect from W. Virginia who provides no name), Kww (someone in Arizona who provides his name yet no other work experience since he left some island in the Carribean), Tarc (someone with minimal acute discussion on his homepage asserting his abilities), NorthBySouthBaranof (who provides no identifying data other than some Wikipedia contributions and provides no name or anything about his qualifications or otherwise).
Considering what has already been stated above as to the qualifications of Richard Warren Lipack behind his contributions, which is rather formidible in light of what has been presented in the paragraph above consisting of editors and administrators to this forum, all who, if one looks at their respective homepages, bare far less qualifications than what has already been presented (and but a tip of the iceberg), it is believed all those mentioned in the paragraph above, should be immediately cited with: WP:COMPETENCE
The only party supportive of at least that the above editors and administrators adhere to proper procedure instead of outright blocking Richard Warren Lipack 'before' he even had a chance to reply and face his accusers, but who's efforts in the discussion were steam rolled over and ignored - was NewJerseyliz (an apparently sincere and sympathetic woman from New Jersey who provides no name or any data explaining what she does other than what she has worked on).
In light of what has happened in the case of Richard Warren Lipack and Epochwiki77, poor judgement and uncivil conduct on the part of an over-egregious administrator or administrators clearly has taken place. For the record here, the one who made the final determination in this situation, after all bounds of civil conduct were abandon by not allowing Richard Warren Lipack to 'face his accusers' as would normally be expected before he was blocked and his work removed, is non other than a “psychotherapy researcher” at the University of Sheffield and in the National Health Service in Yorkshire, England named Kim Dent-Brown
Please let me provide something else that is sure all of the editors and administrators - particularly for Kim Dent-Brown - the so-called psychotherapy researcher who also states emphatically to have deep interest in “Wicca” and "NeoPaganism” by his own account - were not aware of regarding the so-called work by Richard Warren Lipack embodying what had been sanctioned as "semi-literate tinfoil rants" by Tarc.
One example is many of quotes by Richard Warren Lipack addressing the subject of mind control and MKUltra that was published in his 1996 book and found published through-out the Spanish speaking world after the death of singer Amy Winehouse. All of these "crazy" discussions so deemed by those party to this forum with respect to the Tila Tequila contribution are found in all of these published accounts on mind control, extrapolated from the 1996 Richard Warren Lipack book.
Here is a translated section discussing in part the work of Richard Warren Lipack taken from a widely circulated article published first in Spain and then carried through-out the Spanish speaking world citing the name of and quotes by Richard Warren Lipack (broken from translation):
"The atonal music was created in 1910 by Arnold Schoenberg, Austrian composer and M16 agent. This scale consists of serious and repetitive sounds, according to sources, was taken from the music of worship Dionysus, god of madness and transgression. What does a member of British Intelligence to create sensations composing music? It, at least, suspect. A purpose of this music says Richard Warren Lipack: "This new form of music would inflict on the psyche and the subconscious subliminal rupture much more radical. [...] This occurred naturally due to increasing uninhibited tone that he submitted the body, the brain and the human spirit that the rapid progression of atonal scale easily brought. " Some experts claim that this music Theodor Adorno chose to apply to the compositions of the Beatles."
Obviously the vast present Spanish speaking world does not seem to think that the past work nearly two decades old by Richard Warren Lipack, which includes similar information by Richard Warren Lipack in his Tila Tequila Wikipedia contribution - is made up of what the obviously uninformed Wikipedia editors and administrators were quick to pre-judge as "semi-literate tinfoil rants."
Here are those Spanish links;
http://www.magdalenadelamo.com/opiniondetalle.php?id=12
The translated page:
http://www.analisisdigital.org/2011/07/27/amy-winehouse-otro-idolo-caido/
The translated page:
http://blogs.periodistadigital.com/opinion.php/2011/08/05/p299395
The translated page;
In following, Richard Warren Lipack has quotes taken from his book for what Wikipedia editors and administrators in this forum have unanimously agreed to be "semi-literate tinfoil rants" that just so happen to appear in even greater detail in the New York Times best selling author Daniel Estulin book entitled: "Club Bilderberg." Here is the link:
\http://iran.archive.org/stream/ClubBildeberg/Los_secretos_del_club_bilderberg1_djvu.txt
The quotes taken from the 1996 book by Richard Warren Lipack and the book itself was used as source material by Daniel Estulin in his important work that has been widely received through-out the world. Much of what Richard Warren Lipack covered in his 1996 book, Daniel Estulin further elaborated upon in his book published just over ten years later!
So, here we have a New York Times best selling author of supposed "semi-literate tinfoil rants" that just so happens to be unnamously accepted world-wide - and who used a book by none other than Richard Warren Lipack self-published over a decade before to support his findings. Isn't that amazing!
Now how can that be?
Besides that, how is it that Wikipedia discusses Daniel Estulin, who came to rely in part on the decade earlier foundational work by Richard Warren Lipack to formulate Estulin's findings for his New York Times best seller - but which Wikipedia editors and administrators participant in this current forum believe such writings to be merely "semi-literate tinfoil rants," maintain such an 'attitude' when yet at the same time the entire Wikipedia community actually acknowledges such a so-called purveyor of "semi-literate tinfoil rants" on the very exact same Wikipedia website that Richard Warren Lipack is submitting his account of Tila Tequila on and who has posted his more formidible work on William Fothergill Cooke and Coca Cola on for each now well over a year? How can that be?
Well, for the record, here is that very link;
http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/Daniel_Estulin
Isn't that amazing?
It seems to that the basis to quickly exterminate Richard Warren Lipack and all of his works from Wikipedia has much to do about nothing, but all to do about a series of personal (and possibly other) agendas based on a 'mob' tribunal mentality that was mustered up by Kww, i.e. 'Kevin Wayne Williams' from Arizona, the editor with former life experience as a hotel clerk/ manager and who worked as a salesman in a real estate office in Bonaire whose only cited major contribution to anything on his Wikipedia page is, in his own words is - that he 'stalks' as much as; "11,822-items-on-watchlist." Does this statement merit one to be impressed?
Again, here are a portion of citations for Richard Warren Lipack (which by the way, is not cited by Richard Warren Lipack as does Kww does for himself, but by others);
Now, one other interesting aspect of Kww, according to his Wikipedia homepage is that 'Kevin Wayne Williams' claims he is "attempting to adapt to life," and that he currently resides "in Arizona." Besides that 'Kevin Wayne Williams' has a lot of hobbies playing musical instruments like the "mandolin," "harmonica," "saxophone," and also dabbles in "Japanese, and evolutionary biology," he has little much else to say about himself, his writing experience or writing prowess.
'Kevin Wayne Williams' is the one who is responsible at stirring up this purge of Richard Warren Lipack - for whatever reasons.
Now we must look much closer at Kim Dent-Brown, who came to be the head chosen gatekeeper in this instance for some reason, who honestly claims this for himself on his Wikipedia homepage:
"I work as a psychotherapy researcher at the University of Sheffield and in the National Health Service in Yorkshire, England."
It is clear that the citations claimed by WorldCat.org for Richard Warren Lipack formidably surpass that of Kim Dent-Brown, and it should be noted that Richard Warren Lipack does not even have a college degree in the subject of writing, but rather a Bachelor of Arts in Photography from SVA - i.e. the School of Visual Arts in NYC!
Oh, the subject of the schooling Richard Warren Lipack should be mentioned. While at SVA, Richard Warren Lipack passed the History of Photography course by submitting a 10 page typewritten discussion thesis based on his “Life Experience” (as a photographic art dealer and historian), all at the age of 22.
Prior to that, Richard Warren Lipack attended Jersey City State College in Jersey City, New Jersey where as a freshman was awarded 1st, 2nd and 3rd place in a motion picture production awards competition against freshmen to seniors - with films he merely took off of the shelf that he had made in high school - outside of high school, because there was no film class at the high school Richard Warren Lipack attended.
Prior to attending Jersey City State College in 1972, Richard Warren Lipack worked for the State of New Jersey as a paid consultant to the State of New Jersey on video production, while still in high school - even though there was no video production classes or equipment at the high school Richard Warren Lipack attended in New Jersey.
Kim Dent-Brown certainly has acted way out of the bounds of his expertise and two-fold - his authority as a Wikipedia administrator. Kim Dent-Brown does claim to have obtained a "PhD at the University of Hull on the topic of therapeutic storymaking" and states that he "even managed to publish some of my (his) work" but no reference has been provided for any books, so one can assume no books have been published authored by Kim Dent-Brown. - See more at: http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/User:Kim_Dent-Brown#sthash.vDTfb7N9.dpuf
Kin Dent-Brown appears not to have the proper professional citations to cast stones by acting and giving final sanction to a series of acts perpetrated by a whipped-up rampage of a craized mob tribunal that has blocked and unjustly minimized the presence of the world-class author Richard Warren Lipack on the pages of Wikipedia; unless there is of course another reason or hidden agenda
But maybe this situation about Richard Warren Lipack all has more to do with who Kim Dent-Brown is and what he has prime regards for, all as stated on his Wikipedia homepage;
"I have lived a life of irreproachable respectability. Even including my chosen spiritual path of Wicca, into which I was initiated in 1996. "
According to Wikipedia, their head administrator on the subject of finalizing the blocking of Richard Warren Lipack happens to be none other than a self-proclaimed witch. Now read for yourself what Wikipedia says about Wicca;
"Wicca (English pronunciation: /ˈwɪkə/) is a modern pagan, witchcraft religion. It was developed in England during the first half of the 20th century and it was introduced to the public in 1954 by Gerald Gardner, a retired British civil servant. It draws upon a diverse set of ancient pagan and 20th century hermetic motifs for its theological structure and ritual practice."
See more at: http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/Wicca#sthash.Y5cGX1i5.dpuf
Were the actions of Richard Warren Lipack by Kim Dent-Brown essentially a modern day witch hunt?
Could this mean that by Kim Dent-Brown ’s very own admission of his purpose, life path and over reaction of blocking Richard Warren Lipack, that we have what clear cut warrants WP:COMPETENCE or beyond? It certainly seems to be a reasonable consideration.
Kim Dent-Brown is essentially a self proclaimed modern day witch, who does volunteer work for Wikipedia predominately editing "Wicca" and "Neopaganism," as he so states. - See more at: http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/User:Kim_Dent-Brown#sthash.vDTfb7N9.dpuf
Since this is the case, how much of the work on "Wicca" and "Neopaganism" topics that Kim Dent-Brown has worked on for Wikipedia, based on life experience, but of which has been published? I think an investigation into the edits of Kim Dent-Brown needs to be mounted so as to determine if he is in true violation of: Wikipedia:No original research.
The big question is: Why are there Wicca witches at Wikipedia? As well, precisely how many Wicca witches are there working at Wikipedia?
Now this is where it gets interesting. Richard Warren Lipack as shown above in the Spanish extrapolations from his 1996 world-class book in part on the history of mass mind control - cites ancient pagan rituals to be inculcated in modern day mass mind control, which too had been cited in the quotes produced by Richard Warren Lipack used by author Daniel Estulin in his New York Times best selling book "Club Bilderberg."
Kim Dent-Brown explains on his homepage that he worked in professional theatre in the early 1980's at both the Salisbury Playhouse and the Swansea Grand Theatre and states that Ken Dodd had him "on stage to take his coat every night."
Ken Dodd incidentally, if one does a search, will find that he as well once hosted a BBC radio show where he featured the Beatles, and Kim Dent-Brown, a native of Great Britain - took care of Ken Dodd's apparel regularly.
Thus it should be noted that I, Richard Warren Lipack, starting at the age of 24, for many years was associated with Clive Epstein, the business manager of NEMS Enterprises, Ltd. that Brian Epstein created to manage the Beatles. I, Richard Warren Lipack visited the Epstein family in 1979 (who paid the airfare by the way), and stayed at the house of Queenie Epstein, Brian Epstein's mother, where I took many photographs of Brian Epstein's personal possessions and desk, acquired copies of many important Beatles related documents and conducted an exclusive recorded interview with Queenie Epstein that I have not yet released. Conversely Clive Epstein visited NJ and stayed at the family home of myself, Richard Warren Lipack in New Jersey and Epstein also came to Thanksgiving dinner at the home of cousins and close family of mine.
Here is a photograph and reference widely reproduced on the Internet of Richard Warren Lipack with former Beatles business manager Clive Epstein;
http://www.librarything.com/pic/173254
http://www.librarything.com/author/lipackrichardwarren
As we continue down the proverbial rabbit hole, we find that Wikipedia arduously posts actual academic dissertations shown via the following links of which each and every subject discussed is exactly what was discussed in the Richard Warren Lipack deleted Tila Tequila contribution which was considered by Tarc and unanimously agreed upon as work in the realm of "semi-literate tinfoil rants." Yet such criterior is not applied to the following links, nor did Tarc or anyother member to the Wikipedia mob tribunal seek to consult, even though it was their duty and with in their perfunctory ability.
Here are those such posts sustained on Wikipedia:
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Project_MKUltra?previous=yes
http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/Project_MKUltra
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mind_control?previous=yes
http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/Mind_control
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/New_world_order_%28politics%29?previous=yes
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cathy_O%27Brien?previous=yes
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Alex_Jones?previous=yes
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/David_Icke?previous=yes
http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/Mark_Dice
http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/Illuminati
http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/Adam_Weishaupt
Essentially, what all of this clearly reveals is that no such editor or administrator administered proper investigative procedure with respect to checking "facts" behind what essentially they predominately presented as 'factual,' clearly establishes that all points of contention against Richard Warren Lipack brought up by the editors and sanctioned by the administrators was based purely on mere opinion and 'catch phrase' opinionated deducement.
Now let's look at the following - but before we do, let's look closer at Kww / ‘Kevin Wayne Williams’ first before we read on to what he said and what he gets his fellow editors to say.
Here's Kww from the original thread prior to the main ANI thread;
"Illuminati conspiracy theories
If you continue to post Illuminati conspiracy theories as if they were factual, your account will be blocked from editing.—Kww(talk) 02:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)"
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; As documented above, Wikipedia has reams of pages on these very subjects and topics which Kww says is not a place for the Tila Tequila contribution by myself - Richard Warren Lipack - in spite of the fact that actual videos of Tila Tequila talking about the various aspects of mind control, New World Order, Illuminati, along with transcripted quotes from such videos have been used as reference sources and accurately linked to by myself, Richard Warren Lipack in my Tila Tequila contribution.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Whatever the content of what Tila Tequila is actually quoted as discussing in her spoken passages; it is not the purpose of Wikipedia editors and administrators who attacked the work of myself, Richard Warren Lipack in this instance, to make judgement calls categorically asserting and classifiying the Tila Tequila quotes as mere "conspiracy rants" as Newjerseyliz stated or being of the 'opinion' offered by Tarc insinuating that what Tila Tequila spoke of was along the lines of "semi-literate tinfoil rants."
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Whether Tila Tequila stated that she liked 'Mickey Mouse' over that of 'Donald Duck,' is not the issue here. Thus, neither should it be of any concern to Wikipedia editors or administrators - if the Tila Tequila quotes best explain the very complex issues that occured in the life of Tila Tequila who was expelled from Hollywood for calling out the issue of mind control and the Illuminati; good, bad or indifferent. The truth of the matter of discussion is the issue here. Yet it is an issue which the Wikipedia editors and administrators wrongly only voiced their opinion clearly not backed up by fact.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Also, the same quality of reference links were provided by Richard Warren Lipack for Alex Jones, David Icke and Mark Dice; all Wikipedia posted category subjects as well and all part of the discussion of Tila Tequila.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; The Wikipedia links that I, Richard Warren Lipack gives in my Tila Tequila contribution and in all of his other work submitted clearly are as authoratative as any that can be provided as he is a widely quoted world-class author far greater than all who have judged him. This also speaks for the references that I provided in all of my submissions, as a internationally acclaimed expert by all accounts that can not be disputed; as shown above in part, with more to follow.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; For all parties reading this discussion written by myself, Richard Warren Lipack, is that it should be crystal clear by now that it would behoove all to realize that the final rationale put into effect by the mob tribunal affair that was orchestrated against me, Richard Warren Lipack and finalized by Kim Dent-Brown will effect the credibility and position of Wikipedia in a way that can never be reversed, if these actions by those party to this discussion are not reversed.
A feature length motion picture video documentary currently in production on the original manuscript of William Fothergill Cooke, and when released shortly, will come to reveal that the foundation of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia process is defective.
Richard, if you want to talk to me, just edit this page and reply right after my words.—Kww(talk) 03:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
As for why I'm contacting you instead of Flyer22, it's because I agree with Flyer22: the material you have added has no place here.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- See more at: http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/User_talk:Richard_Warren_Lipack#sthash.omcdbzjD.dpuf
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; As documented above, Wikipedia has reams of pages on these very subjects and topics which Kww says is not a place for the Tila Tequila contribution by myself - Richard Warren Lipack - in spite of the fact that actual videos of Tila Tequila talking about the various aspect of mind control, New World Order, Illuminati, along with transcripted quotes from such videos have been used as references sources and accurately linked to by myself, Richard Warren Lipack in myTila Tequila contribution.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Also, the same quality of reference links were provided by me, Richard Warren Lipack for Alex Jones, David Icke and Mark Dice; all Wikipedia posted category subjects as well and all part of the discussion of Tila Tequila.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; The Wikipedia links that I, Richard Warren Lipack give in my Tila Tequila contribution and in all of his other work submitted clearly are as authoratative as any that can be provided as I am a world-class fully cited author of a higher order than all that have judged him. This also speaks for the references that I, Richard Warren Lipack provided in all of my submissions, as I a internationally acclaimed expert by all accounts that can not be disputed; as shown above in part, with more to follow.
I recently encountered Richard Warren Lipack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Based on edits like this one (including the delightful section "'They had the internet already discovered back in the 1800′s!!!! They have SO MUCH HIGH TECH STUFF that they have been hiding from us for centuries!!!!' This claim by Nguyen is scientifically correct and today is supported by the recently discovered only extant manuscript journal of telegraph inventor William Fothergill Cooke."), I think it is safe to say that Mr. Lipack's judgement about the nature of reality can legitimately be questioned. On his talk page, he admits that he is also Epochwiki77, which brings us to Epochwiki77's magnum opus, William Fothergill Cooke. A quick perusal of that article's history shows that it was essentially created by Epochwiki77, and relies heavily on http://www.w1tp.com/cooke/ , which, unsurprisingly, is the account of a private journal of William Fothergill Cooke that was discovered by one Richard Warren Lipack.
My first instinct is to revert the article back before Epochwiki77's first edit, block both accounts, and just deal with this with some combination of WP:IAR, WP:COMPETENCE, and WP:ILLEGIT (on the argument that the name "Epochwiki77" was chosen to hide the relationship to Richard Warren Lipack). Before I do that, I'd like to hear suggestions.—Kww(talk) 06:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- See more at: http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/User:Kww#sthash.KXTwR0hr.dpuf
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Epochwiki77 was first chosen as merely a 'name' to sign-up with and learn the Wikipedia process and to start adding fresh material to Wikipedia catagories that I had specialty in. I am a collector of artifacts and a accomplished historian with over 43 years experience, i.e. "in the field" - where things I have found today are in museums and major private collections around the world including in the National Portrait Gallery and the Metropolitan Museum of Art here in the United States. Because of my life experience (as only shown thus far in part), I can and have made initially many great contributions to Wikipedia that will have it rise above all of the other reference sources currently available in encyclopedic form. What I have presented thus far is merely the 'tip of the iceberg.'
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; For the sake of this forum record, here are the precise links that are archived by Wikipedia that I, Richard Warren Lipack contributed to, as they stood before they were eradicated without a discussion that included Richard Warren Lipack, even though Newjerseyliz repeatedly asked the forum for myself to have the right to participate and 'face his accusors.'
http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=William_Fothergill_Cooke&diff=566839878&oldid=566647555
http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Coca-Cola&diff=565927961&oldid=565030222
http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Tila_Tequila&diff=567476148&oldid=565826039
Note that the two top links of contributions by Richard Warren Lipack remained unchallenged on Wikipedia each for over a year: unchallenged as to authenticity by both the authority of the British Science Museum in London and The Coca Cola Company in Atlanta. This fact clearly attests to the authenticity of the posts and as to the correct voracity of their content.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; It is also recommended that the following link be brought back for consideration and further editing with assistance from a qualified Wikipedia editor.
Tila Tequila link;
http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Tila_Tequila&diff=567476148&oldid=565826039
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; In any event, as I, Richard Warren Lipack began the process to try to learn to upload content for Wikipedia under my initial registered name Epochwiki77, I had gone to the Coca Cola entry and saw that it was a semi-protected site entry and that I needed a certain amount of hour and days 'logged in' to edit and contribute there. I was Epochwiki77 when I first signed-up and wanted to contribute the discoveries I made of the earliest and only known original photo of Coca Cola founders Candler and Dr. Pemberton, as found in the 1950 book by Candler's eldest son Charles Howard Candler. The copy of this book I had acquired was the Candler famiy's personal copy and signed by several Candlers, including Asa, the Coca Cola founder; the copy of which I had the original. But I couldn't enter the "Coca Cola" post until I logged a certain amount of worktime editing. So I saw that the William Fothergill Cooke entry was just a 'stub' consisting of a mere few paragraphs with no formidable material comprising same and because of this I could also enter it for contribution of material. So I went ahead and made a major contribution of the singular most important holding of material on William Fothergill Cooke and the birth of the internet that I happened to own and which I discovered over 14 years ago. If it was not for this Cooke journal, which I revealed in part through Wikipedia, Wikipedia would never have come to even exist nor would there have been the creation of the Internet; without the Cooke journal.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; As 'Kevin Wayne Williams' / Kww wrongly implies, I did not use the name Epochwiki77 to hide the relationship to Richard Warren Lipack, and this was not my intentions or reasoning behind establishing Richard Warren Lipack, i.e.;
“(on the argument that the name Epochwiki77 was chosen to hide the relationship to Richard Warren Lipack). Before I do that, I'd like to hear suggestions.—Kww(talk) 06:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)”
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; I registered my full name Richard Warren Lipack sometime after Epochwiki77 as an after-thought later, and also did so because I am a published author which Wikipedia itself has relied on as a source for their major catagories on Brian Epstein and for the currently ongoing "Wikipedia Beatles Study Project;”
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles?previous=yes
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; I thought using my real name was appropriate. It was not as 'Kevin Wayne Williams' / Kww seeks to imply - as it came as an afterthought as I have stated above - after I had already registered first as Epochwiki77. It must be explained herein that Kww posts no credentials of his writing experience on his home page for the public record. I must remind all that I have citations in five (5) major published writing guides including one published by Harvard as shown herein above - and because of this, I reasoned there was no need for me to hide behind a phony name as so many seek to do here on Wikipedia: all hiding behind a bogus facade strewn with nonsensical inuendos, irrelevent talk, chatter and discussion that speak nothing or very little of writing accomplishment or activity (if any), cute catch phrases, or any indication that they are even qualified to pass judgement on anybody else’s work let alone their own!
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; When I was younger, as I have stated elsewhere herein, I knew Clive Epstein, the brother to Brian Epstein the manager of the Beatles. We negotiated with each other for me to do an ‘authorized book’ on the Beatles because of rare unpublished Beatles negatives I had found pertaining to their days as a touring band behind the scenes in 1966. I signed a contract with Queenie Epstein, heir to Brian Epstein, manager of the Beatles. Then John Lennon was shot and killed. Information came out about the negatives I had about how the Beatles were tripping on LSD in my photos. The Epstein’s did not want me to write about the Beatles LSD use, so I chose to abandond the contract out of integrity to my work and findings. The Beatles later would discuss their LSD use again many times in their the 1995 Anthology, but in 1980, it was considered taboo by the Epstein’s and their lawyers.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; As I have stated, my 1996 published book has been used as source material for the Brian Epstein Wikipedia entry and has been such for over ten years and up till about March 25, 2013. The photo of the Epstein's old 'NEMS' record shop in the 1920's which I obtained a personal copy from Queenie Epstein - Brian Epstein's mother, and used in my 1996 book on page 16 has illustrated the Wikipedia Brian Epstein now for the same ten years as well. However, I must reveal here that it was illegally used by Wikipedia for about a decade as well, but I said nothing about it!! It was used till about March 25, 2013 / April 5, 2013. This clearly illustrates how so much on Wikipedia is flawed, not so much in this case as to the image shown that was mine to use, but more so as to the proof of the source that was given in Wikipedia - which was inaccurately given as “Jim McCartney” - Paul McCartney's father. This defective post was not detected by Wikipedia editors for around a decade! But it was lifted straight out of my 1996 book and the one that was used on Wikipedia was slightly trimmed on one edge, making it slightly shorter than the original in my book. This is all verifiable fact and can easily be proven as such!
Maybe a topic ban is in order as it seems like the editor has single-minded focus on Tequila. The amount of work that went into the contribution to Tequila's article is substantial though it completely off-topic and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Or just keep Tequila's page protected.
I don't think a site-wide ban is called yet but a review of William Fothergill Cooke might be in order. I just think that if he could make a diligent editor if he accepted Wikipedia standards on RS. I don't agree with his worldview but if he can keep the conspiracy rants out of his work, he could be a productive user. Newjerseyliz (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Any discussion of so-called "conspiracy rants" as so postulated by Newjerseyliz has been proven false above by Wikipedia’s own content and my world-class recognition and widely reproduced quotes from my previous work published in 1996. Please go to above data and suitable links to satisfy complete dismisal of this unfounded accusation by Newjerseyliz, which should be dealt with as: WP:COMPETENCE
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; It seems that I am being roasted at the stake here by apparently very limited informed editors who do not even know how to carry out follow-up perfunctory and rudimentary research and the checking up of why facts are in fact ‘facts,’ and who do not have any world-class credibility to carry on such 'rants' about so-called uncalled for classification of what they are referring to as "conspiracy rants."
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; ...... and yes, it does in fact seem that I, Richard Warren Lipack am being called out and kicked off of Wikipedia 'because' of my apparent percieved thinking based solely on unsupported opinion, when in fact the entire world of more qualified academians than Newjerseyliz and the others part of this tribunal - and even myself - think otherwise - as is clearly demonstrated by the five (5) major citations for writing I have the unique distinction of holding that few if any contributors to Wikipedia can prove to have under their belt and come forward with. If somebody can prove me wrong, please come forward with the proof.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; My question is, how many editors and administrators on Wikipedia who have voted to delete my work and my longstanding contributions to Wikipedia, and blocked me - have any published books out there - let alone which are on the shelves of Harvard and Cornell? If there are any, please, anyone - kindly bring these people to my attention, and add to the record to support your arguments. Please let myself and other editors have a look at what you can provide for this record, as it is all in the best interest and effort to protect the reliability, credibility and reputation of Wikipedia.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Why is it that all editors within this discussion have sought to prove their points with loose interpretations of Wikipedia policy to bolster up their totally opinionated postulations and statements, baseless assertions, and further steeped mere opinion?
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; The question does arise as to why many of the editors attacking and voting to delete my world-class work hide behind fake names and have nothing but pages with limited page content or anecdotal descriptions always verging or representative of high school grade text messaging mixed with occasional sarcasim?
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Also, will it be possible for myself Richard Warren Lipack to have a forum with only editor's that have quotes from any of their published work (if so even exists) reproduced anywhere, let alone overseas to their country of residence - so that we are all on a level playing field here?
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; It seems that Wikipedia needs to maintain a more credible persona the way I am beginning to see it, judging by the overt travesty that has been exhibited here up to this point.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Of course before any of this can be carried out all will need to see that I am unblocked in both of my accounts - i.e. Richard Warren Lipack and Epochwiki77, and that all of my contributions are reverted back to the way they were.
this recent review;
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Now let's get back to the data in further support of my above arguments. Please have a look at this link for this recent review;
(WIKIPEDIA BLOCKED SAVING THIS WHOLE PAGE BECAUSE OF THIS LINK I TRIED TO SAVE ALL OF THIS TO ENTER IT INTO THE RECORD - SO I AM MODIFYING THE LINK AND YOU WILL NEED TO COPY AND PAST INTO A BROWSER AND REPLACE THE "DOT" IN TWO PLACES WITH REAL DOTS IN TWO PLACE) http://wwwDOTexaminerDOTcom/review/john-lennon-and-the-beatles-at-the-mirror-of-man-s-destiny
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Note that the review was written 16 (16) years after (AFTER) the Richard Warren Lipack 1996 book was published - and such content in part is predominately the exact basis of the Tila Tequila contribution that I made - which is all based on references that have been properly cited - but never looked at by 'Kevin Wayne Williams' / Kww and assessed properly.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Here's what author Zack Kopp said in part wholly pertinent to this discussion on Tila Tequila;
"Richard Warren Lipack’s Epoch Moments and Secrets: John Lennon and the Beatles at the Mirror of Man’s Destiny makes the case that what the Beatles got themselves into through their manager Brian Epstein's contracts and guidance, unbeknownst to them, was a role in the New World Order's plans to test out mass mind control, transforming the gritty covers band with an attitude and talent into a sociopolitical tool. The group's decision to admit their use of LSD and marijuana as they began to move beyond their Beatlemania image into the psychedelic era was apparently a step toward independence from this, but considering the flower-power-as-CIA-hoax motif, you couldn't disprove it by me. Epstein replaced their leathers with collarless suits by Pierre Cardin, which got them into family rooms around the globe, presenting a huge opportunity for Tavistock (a British charity concerned with group and organisational behaviour and alleged arm of the English version of MKUltra) to capture the minds of the entire world's youth. The modern multimedia presentation of music and marketing began here. Such unconventional postulations, which once might have seemed outrageous, are increasingly believable in this age of new angles, and preferable to me for what they destroy and create. As proven by shows like Surreal Life where "washed up" celebrities are made to cohabitate for viewers' amusment, or Fredrik Colting's book on Salinger's Holden Caulfield as an old man, fame is a cannibal, worshipping even its own leftovers, a perversity of taste noted famously by Nathanael West."
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Instead of working with me, as I had last asked of him, 'Kevin Wayne Williams' / Kww sought not to do any such thing in a constructive manner, nor did he allow me to even to respond properly to his last directive or recommendation! Kww just threatened to block - then behind my back sought out a tribunal of ‘gang members’ to whip up a fury and systematically take me out without further ado. Editors are supposed to be helpful, not hurtful.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Now, how come no one has come to be bothered looking at the current Tila Tequila post entry (not my contribution that was deleted), and do any thing about the inaccuracies that are currently embedded in it with regard to cited reference sources?
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; How can the current Tila Tequila post entry be considered accurate if fourteen (14) out of sixty-five (65) reference citations are now "dead links"? I repeat, here are 14 out of 65 "dead links" in the current Wikipedia Tila Tequila post!! That constitutes precisely one fifth (1/5th) of the entire post entry!
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; What has anybody done about this? What has Kww done about this? All Kww did was knock out my very relevant world-class supported contribution consisting in part of actual transcriptions of actual quotes found in actual videos archived and posted in multiple places on the internet (in case of dead links) of Tila Tequila herself talking; the very subject of the Wikipedia post entry. It seems a post contribution provided by me which no one ever read or listened to or watched before they formulated and postulated their opinions as facts: that I have put forth no credible references! All that was put forth was a few elements drummed up to make my integrity look questionable long after more data was looked at. These fully documented adverse actions by this supposed forum further substanciate that the whole entire Wikipedia 'process' from what I see that has been revealed in closer scrutiny herein discussed is flawed and bogus! All that I, Richard Warren Lipack wrote and contributed is supported by fact, and referenced quotes of fact of actual occurences, period - which I have the authority and world reconized authority to do.
I think an indef block is more than appropriate at this point. We should not be wasting a second more of time discussing semi-literate tinfoil rants about lizard people, Illuminati, and a D-list reality tv personality. Drop the hammer, and we find better things to do. Tarc (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Please take note, our unidentifiable limited minded Tarc; please have a look at this Wikipedia link - and scroll down to see stuff about "lizard people" (under "Key Ideas") and "Illuminati;"
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/David_Icke?previous=yes
Oy vey...I just looked through this and my brain is oozing out of my ears trying to escape. Support indef - The Bushranger One ping only 13:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Bushranger needs to ask professors and students at Harvard and other world-class universities about my writings and if each find their "brain is oozing out of my (THEIR) ears trying to escape."
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; “Oy vey” - such a professional response coming from a person who won't tell us his real name.
Note that the same editor has also used Epochwiki77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). - The Bushranger One ping only 13:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Users shouldn't be banned, especially indefinitely, just because they have kooky ideas. I mean, who knows what kind of ideas other editors have that they never express? I'm sure there are regular editors and Admins who have peculiar beliefs. We can't police minds, only conduct. The content he posted was not encyclopedic and didn't have credible sources and it was rightly reverted.
Remember, the focus on contributions, not contributors. If he can read up on Wiki policy and standards and adhere to them, he shouldn't be prevented from editing. But if there is a particular hot topic that he repeated edits in a disruptive way, he can be given a topic ban, not a site ban. Newjerseyliz (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Newjerseyliz says - "didn't have credible sources," hmmmm.... Please note that the sources were never checked for accuracy by you New jerseyliz or anybody else and posted in this forum - so how on Earth can you Newjerseyliz make the unfounded inaccurate statement saying that the content submitted "didn't have credible sources."? Your position of mere opinion in this regard is as well unfounded also from a proper investigative standpoint. "Kooky ideas," hmmmmm? Geez, I am only basing all of my professional observations founded solely on my world-class professinal standing as pointed out herein.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Now all party to this forum also please have a close look at any of these Goggle links for further credible citations of my authority and experience as a historian that has full aurthority in the realm of producing the authorative accounts and supply previously unpublished new data for my William Fothergill Cooke and Coca Cola contributions. These are credible links for actions I, Richard Warren Lipack (when I was between a mere 21 and 26 years of age), was involved with between the biggest art and artifact museum (the Metropolitan Museum of Art) in the United States and myself, which can be safely said is not held by anybody under the Wikipedia umbrella to date;
Remember, the focus on contributions, not contributors. If he can read up on Wiki policy and standards and adhere to them, he shouldn't be prevented from editing. But if there is a particular hot topic that he repeated edits in a disruptive way, he can be given a topic ban, not a site ban. Newjerseyliz (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Newjerseyliz makes no sense here in juxtoposition to what I have thus shown above about where I have been, what I have done, and my international standing in the world of academia. But why has any suggestions by Newjerseyliz not debated or discussed by other editors or administrators, but merely roughshodded over by the mob tribunal driven forum? The initial slashing and burning deletions prior to any sources being checked and verified for accuracy supports certainly a 'rush to judgement' attitude, that if anything is more disruptive than anything the wrongly opinionated and unfounded statement that Newjerseyliz has put forth.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; What has taken place is a wonton disregard "disruptive" to supporting the idea harboring that Wikipedia is a fresh place for expansion of intellectual thought. It seems that original discovery must be kept out of the Wikipedia arena and that all contributions must merely remain as regurgitated data taken by previously published works; right, wrong or indifferent.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; This whole process is a farce and what is more a farce is that unequipped, predominately unprofessional and generally unqualified and generally unpublished persons are incessently ‘roaming the halls of Wikipedia’ under an illusion driven by some standard that is not based on anything that is standard in the real world of historical accountability, documentation and the dispersement of true and vital knowledge. It is this ‘demeanor’ of intent that is what is “disruptive” here - where new information and findings can not have a firm platform because editors and administrators that come and go on the Wikipedia platform don’t even know how to perform simple accepted methods of proper evaluation during the editing process - because they predominately don’t live it in their lives as a elected vocation for the most part. Wikipedia is just a ‘hobby’ or a diversion for most it seems - 'doing Wikipedia' instead of just texting things to friends, watching TV, or playing video games or whatever.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Also, these "disruptive" actions by apparently uninformed editors unschooled in certain areas of "hands on" research expertise flys in the face of how Wikipedia is thought as being symbolic of intellectual thought that many believe Wikipedia embodies instead of digressing to the basic 'hoax" that is starting to develop within the ranks of many of its custodial contributors.
The user is not (with any luck) being blocked because of holding these ideas, we don't practice Thoughtcrime around here. They would be blocked for acting on them, edit warring to insert them into a WP:BLP, and posting crazy, semi-coherent screeds within edit summaries and to user's talk pages about how to contact them to discuss/demand that this material be retained. This is base incompetence. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Based on the accreditation and world-class reproduction of quotes from my work that I, Richard Warren Lipack hold, compared to that of nothing held by Tarc, who gives no identity nor exudes any real substance of his qualifications to even support his 'wordy' sound byte strewn opinion that "we don't practice Thoughtcrime around here," is clearly an understatement supported only by words of 'goody-feely' substance to draw more sympathizers toward the agenda of eradicating Richard Warren Lipack. a world-class master historian into the fold of the ensuing mob tribunal - much like the mindless 'thought' of lemmings marching to the sea. Oy Vey!
I'm disappointed that this was acted on so quickly, without even hearing from the individual you've now indefinitely banned from the website. I don't think he was incompetent, he just didn't honor Wiki MOS, perhaps due to ignorance about policies and practices. I guess I don't understand why, when so many other issues on noticeboards and dispute pages linger around for months without a resolution, that a total ban was decided upon in less than 24 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newjerseyliz (talk • contribs) 22:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Good point from Newjerseyliz, but why has no one yet even entered into a discussion of this point? Instead, again only the mob mentality prevailed here and overstepped their bounds without any exhibition of professionalism, courtesy or proper conduct!
Support indefinite block. Edits show that this contributor is clearly not competent to edit Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; AndyTheGrump, a real publisher no less, only offers conjecture based on limited knowledge, which is surprising in that on his website for his Global Vision Publishing House it is stated that they publish in all realms, but yet exhibits a very narrow minded 'vision' with regards to the facts in William Fothergill Cooke and Coca Cola, probably because he never even looked at these contributions.
Please look here and at the following link;
http://www.globalvisionpub.com/aboutus.aspx
Support indef block and overhaul the William Fothergill Cooke article. GiantSnowman 13:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Aha - with those links from KWW, now it becomes clearer. It looks like the entire focus of this user's edits is popularizing this "Codex Lipack", allegedly a diary of Cooke that he found (and named after himself, of course). That's the source he's using for all of his edits to the Cooke article (which is probably the epitome of Wikipedia:No original research) and that's the motivation for adding all the conspiracy stuff to the Tila Tequila article, since it seems that she may believe him, and she's sort of famous. I don't see any productive edits in that. (It's theoretically possible there are some, because of the great-wall-of-text style he uses, but finding any in the cruft is a real challenge.) If Newjerseyliz or someone else is willing to personally mentor this user, we can let her try, but I suspect the game may not be worth the candle. Otherwise, I support indefinite. --GRuban (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; GRuban is obviously grossly unaware of the antique manuscript world and fully uninformed. The name "Codex Lipack" is how, in the real world of literary manuscript's such as DaVinci's Codex Leicester etc. works, i.e.; when a discovery of a major manuscript ‘find’ of a lost work by a famous person is 'found,' it is always identified by scholars and historians in following to the discovery. Historically the discovered artifact is always based on and named after the discoverer or owner. “.......but I suspect the game may not be worth the candle.” GRuban is certainly a man of minute catch phrase 'wisdom.'
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Since Richard Warren Lipack discovered this important work and actual manuscript document - I am not going to call it "Codex Kww" or "Codex GRuban," now would I? Nor would I ask GRuban or Kww to name it for me. My discovery is the actual manuscript document that infact represents the birth of electronic communications by the inventor, and thus I can give it the name that I want to identify it. As far as your unfounded statement to it being "allegedly" to be Cooke's journal...... it is not "allegedly" but actual fact that it is Cooke's original journal.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; This fact is based on that which consists of core documentation that includes comparative exemplar holograph / autograph documents of Cooke's handwriting that has been placed side by side over a span of approximately 40 years. The dates of the Cooke documents consist of a Cooke letter dated "May 30, 1838" and a Cooke signed letter dated "January 2, 1877." Both of these authentic original independent exemplar letters have been placed next to the earliest page entry in the Cooke "Codex Lipack" manuscript journal, dated "November 30, 1836."
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; The British Science Museum and I have been in correspondence over Cooke's journal for over a decade, and they are mentioned in the William Fothergill Cooke contribution post I prepared that has been up on Wikipedia now for well over a year. Rest assured that the British Science Museum has been aware of this post for quite some time, and if there was any thought on their part that the Cooke journal was not authentic based on the documentation provided, or that I was perpetuating a “hoax” as Kww here has postulated, it is clearly obvious Wikipedia would have heard from the British Science Museum formally challenging this discovery by myself, Richard Warren Lipack over the course of a year’s time. The same goes for my Coca Cola Wikipedia post that includes the earliest extant original photograph of Coca Cola’s founder’s Dr. Pemberton and Asa Candler in 1888. Coca Cola was unable to satisfactorilly challenge my findings and the story made it to the cover of the Wall Street Journal and worldwide - as shown elsewhere herein.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Following is the secondary link provided in William Fothergill Cooke given in the original post that has been removed by administrator Kim Dent-Brown after being up for a year unchallenged by anyone or any authority, the same entity which was cited in the my original contribution;
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Again, we have a case of non-professional mob mentality oozing here out of the ‘brain’ of GRuban. Oh Vey!!! This link above Is on the site of the most comprehensive virtual electronic telegraph communications history museum in the world found on the web.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; It should be noted, that if the British Science Museum could prove that "Codex Lipack" was bogus, someone would have come forward by now. However, if anyone from the museum actually did, they would immediately be proven wrong and with that said, the entire British museum system and world of academia would come crashing down and become a laughing stock world wide - just like Wikipedia is about to be as soon my documentary on the manuscript journal of William Fothergill Cooke is released unless my post is not reverted back to the way it was before administrator Kim Dent-Brown exercised his foolish magik by deleting it!
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As an aside, would anybody be opposed to me being BOLD and reverting to this version which was the last one before Epochwiki77/Richard Warren Lipack started editing? GiantSnowman 14:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by "Richard Warren Lipack;" More unfounded 'goody-feely' mob mentality 'talk' exhibited here it seems.
Done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; How profound. No further comment on this one word of thoughtless unprofessional banter certainly not based on any great journalistic wisdom or genuine writer's prowess.
Good work. GiantSnowman 14:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Lot’s of “work” here. Impressive......... more a mob mentality exhibited here again. Mere benign chatter. These two benign words speak for themselves. Nothing less than one throwing two cents into a fishbowl of water, and surely lacking of any serious intelligent input, merit or serious examination of all of the data.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; If one looks at the time spans between each of the general date and time stamps, one can notice a very interesting pattern. For instance, the actual time in minutes between the 14:15 hours time stamp of AndyTheGrump as found above and that of GiantSnowman - at 14:21 hours, the actual amount of time in minutes between the two is only 6 minutes. The amount of time between the previous comment by GiantSnowman at 14:10 hours, and that of AndyTheGrump at 14:15 hours, is 5 minutes. The prior forum post time of 13:51 hours for GiantSnowman leaves 19 minutes between his next aforementioned post at 14:10 hours. The pattern here that develops and which is evident, is that since it would take many hours to actually read the material comprising William Fothergill Cooke and Coca Cola and check all of the actual reference sources and read those and assess and understand the validity of what was written, and then add on the time to look at and then particularly read and understand the Tila Tequila contribution by Richard Warren Lipack, and at the same time actually search and watch scan and watch the hours of video reference links by Tila Tequila and then compare that data comprising the actual quotes as transcribed shown in the contributions by Richard Warren Lipack, to make sure that they are correct - and then be able to assess if in fact the material is all coherent and copacetic between quotes and video statements and then assess the overall authenticity of correctness and then contribute and offer cohesive comment into the forum of discussion - just is not at all humanly possible. This is because not enough time is reasonbly afforded to the tasks needed by one in order to properly access the three long contributions by Richard Warren Lipack............ period.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Hence, as is evidenced above, such assessment as provided above clearly reveals that neither AndyTheGrump, GiantSnowman or any others within the forum have ever performed or could ever perform their primary required tasks of conducting a proper assessement of all data that was needed to be considered to make a proper assessment. Because of this factor, that unto itself reveals as to why this whole affair of all arriving at the same conclusions that happen to be materially unfounded and incorrect - and then making correct statements supporting the actions of the blocking of and erasure of Richard Warren Lipack and his contributions - absolutely impossible to be sound and proper. As well, the assortment of people acting as editors and administrators, seated in different parts of the world - can only just randomly come into the forum's 'fray' by chance and happenstance for the most part, further shows how a proper assessment of the 'facts' is severely limited.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; This is all more akin to a drunk walking up to the bar in the middle of someone sputtering out a joke, and everybody laughing at it, while the stumbling drunk meandering up to the bar laughs too, but really has no clue! For the most part, it becomes more apparent that all or most all participant in this forum all are just coming onboard merely for just a little ride and amusement - only to become easily lead by only a few of all of the tribunal's ringleading editors and stray administrators.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Hence - a mob tribunal aspect clearly emerges because of this. The whole affair of judging the merit of Richard Warren Lipack and his contributions and assessing all of the data and making a proper judgment is serverely flawed and defective. For this primary reason: That is why the final totally defective judgement calls of the work of Richard Warren Lipack by all editors and administrators that had been arrived at, took place as they did. Now look at this example of unmeasured prudence and authority by cheif administrator Kim Dent-Brown, where at the end, he completely does a full 360 degree turn against his very own own good word of authority and ends up not being at all true to his supposed good and proper word of command;
Support topic ban from the articles on William Fothergill Cooke and Tila Tequila, and support roll back of both articles to their state pre this editor and Epochwiki77's contributions. I agree with NJL that a blanket ban or indef block is too big a hammer to bring down right now, but I have to be honest and say that I do think it may be necessary in the future. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Well Kim Dent-Brown - it looks like the "future" came very quicky, within 24 hours, and you the Wicca based administrator certainly are not a man of righteousness or human conviction because you yourself imposed the final blocks and sanctioned the full eradication of my work the next day. And you are supposed to be an administrator over others, assumingly of great integrity to your elected craft? Apparently you yourself, by your own admission on your homepage certainly live up to your statement found on your Wikipedia homepage. Kim Dent-Brown should be set down and spoken to -and it must be reiterated here: WP:COMPETENCE - WP:IAR
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; As he said, he has a "irreproachable respectibility" and apparently feels he can do as he pleases, even if it includes orchestrating 'witch hunts' perhaps? Hmmmmmm: “Since then I have lived a life of irreproachable respectability. Even including my chosen spiritual path of Wicca, into which I was initiated in 1996." - See more at: http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/User:Kim_Dent-Brown#sthash.VfDh0ZqF.dpuf
Support indef block This user is textbook WP:NOTHERE. Whether this is due to a competence issue, or the fact they just want to mess around and troll isn't relevant; they're not constructive at all, so they need to go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Mob mentality exhibited here from an 18 year U.K. old high school student. Looks like this editor just joined into the fray! Oy vey!! I opt for WP:COMPETENCE for this lad!
Support indef block on the basis of competency and no evidence that they're here to benefit the encyclopedia. Other edits by Epochwiki77 are only a little better, and we don't need to enable hoaxers or the deluded. Acroterion (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; The two above sentences are totally unfounded and reveal the complete ‘incompetency’ on the part of this editor from all standpoint of human intellect and discussion based on the following links and all shown above herein;
I've gone ahead and blocked both accounts.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
After less than a day's consideration? Why the rush? Why not wait for the user to respond to this posting? He hasn't even been on Wikipedia today to see the notice of this discussion and there is no "block" posting on his Talk Page that even informs him a) what happened on the one day he's not on Wikipedia and b) how he could appeal a block.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Absolutely amazing! As well, why had no one come to enter into any sort of dialog with Newjerseyliz about this? What type of an agenda really is this? I believe Kww needs to be dealt with WP:COMPETENCE - WP:IAR
People say that these banning actions aren't personal but the only conclusion I can draw is that a half dozen editors thought he was a kook and wanted to kick him off Wikipedia. I'm not defending the quality of his contributions but the process here stinks. Some editors get away with atrocious behavior and don't even receive a warning while others get immediately and completely banned without a fair hearing. Newjerseyliz (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Nobody cares about what Newjerseyliz says here. Why is that? Can any administrator explain all of this to whomever gets to read this?
Wikipedia is not a court of law, and Lipack can respond on his talk page, if he so chooses. But yes, using Wikipedia to promote crackpot nonsense will usually lead to a quick exit. WP:NOTHERE and the like. Resolute 23:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Well, that option, or should I say right has clearly transpired. I have not be given the right to "respond" ahead of the blocks and erasures sanctioned by Kim Dent-Brown against his very own words of admitted caution as outline above and herein. Truly an administrator of his word (!!!!) A fine upstanding Wiccan it seems certainly exercising his will of intent over that of Wikipedia standard policy where one should have a chance to face his accusors before such actions are instituted. Again I ask for: WP:COMPETENCE - WP:IAR for Kim Dent-Brown - who authorized on a 360 degree change of his good word alllowed for a block of myself, Richard Warren Lipack and deleted my two primary posts on WIlliam Fothergill Cooke and Coca Cola.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; And "crackpot nonsense" as Resolute infers is better applied to the actions of all forum participants that I see above and herein based. For this stupid remark made with unfounded basis it is felt Resolute should also have WP:COMPETENCE - WP:IAR awarded to him.
Well, I doubt he knows what is going on since there is no notice on his Talk page telling him he is blocked, telling him why he was blocked or telling him how he could appeal. Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The block message he receives tells him how to appeal, Newjerseyliz. For me, it wasn't so much his beliefs as it was the suspicion that he was intentionally perpetrating a hoax.—Kww(talk) 00:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; ‘Kevin Wayne Williams’ / Kww - and all others participant in the mob tribunal opinionated based forum should note that Kww has not provided anything other than conjecture that I was "intentionally perpetrating a hoax." Note again that I, Richard Warren Lipack am an expert in my field as a historian and Kww has no accredidation or anything other than providing an abbreviated name of Kww on Wikipedia - whom can play "harmonica" and some other sundry instruments - and worked as a hotel clerk / possible manager on a remote Carribean island.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; My Wikipedia handles as stated herein were established as I have stated herein. Also, coupled with that all of my facts and references on “Codex Lipack’ / Cooke journal are fully substanciated by core documentation consisted actual newly discovered holographic (autograph) documents and manuscript material.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; The fact which remains is that a major feature length documentary motion picture video production is nearing completion that will reveal the entire “Codex Lipack” / William Fothergill Cooke manuscript journal to the world and show beyond any doubt as to its authenticty. When the release of this takes place, which is soon to happen - let it be formally known that ‘Kevin Wayne Williams’ / Kww and all others participant in this forum that are acting as a foolish ‘doubting Thomas’ will instantly be shooting all of yourselves in the foot.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; But how can anybody expect any accordance of understanding what was dissolved from the pages of Wikipedia when Kim Dent-Brown deleted my post contributions of William Fothergill Cooke - when the cheering squad is made up of those who have no published book under their belt, or have had only no or limited presence in periodical publications, maybe got a story in a journal, or worse yet, were lucky to contribute to some print fanzine rag - or have, at the lowest may have presented themselves on some Internet blog site, such as what Wikipedia seems to be becoming in light of what is evident herein regarding this forum over my world-class work and contributions to Wikipedia which they seek to denounce.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Whatever the case is for all those participant herein, before I, Richard Warren Lipack am pre-judged by any and all of you, and further without a chance to say ‘my piece’ before the “hammer” (as Kim Dent-Brown said ‘was too big to drop right now,’ but did anyway) was dropped, it seems a reasonable request would be that all participants understand that 'opinions being made as though they were fact' should not be the base foundation of Wikipedia's presence in the supposed academic community they are striving to take a hold in.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Further note that unpublished book authors or published authors of limited breadth who are furthermore not quoted worldwide are wasting valuable time for al here and therefore should be removed from this forum and from Wikipedia, it is unfortunate to have to say.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; It is paththetic to witness the amount of disregard and mere perfunctory effort expended with respect to a proper catagorical review of the facts presented in my work that has been viciously deleted - or of a lack of understanding of same on its face; all because nobody can understand how to read and assimilate factual information when it stares them right in the eyes it seems!.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; If Wikipedia continues along the manner of operation as is witnessed here of those participant within this forum of discussion - Wikipedia quickly on the path to becoming a “hoax” (a Kww word) unto itself thanks to the way some of its editors carry out and attend to their duties; as is demonstrated herein.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; My published work in book form serves as proof that I am qualified to have written the William Fothergill Cooke and Coca Cola contributions as I have. Please, any of you experts with no thoughts of much merit or evidence of knowing what proper documention really consists of, I ask - show me your citations of credibility................. anything ........................ please. You should all be ashamed of yourselves! It seems that most of all what you have here are just little Wikipedia Barnstars like we all had when we were in Kindergarten; all not very impressive from what I can figure. Come on - please bring out your merits of credability besides your musilage backed little gold stars................. please!
I still don't see any message on his Talk page that would back up the policy to "notify the blocked user." Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
It's an automatic function of the blocking software, Newjerseyliz. The block notice used to be the only thing that notified the user. Today, it's primarily a notice to other editors. When he attempts to edit, he will get a message that points him at a permanent link to this discussion and also gives him instructions on how to appeal.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Other affected articles, including Coca-Cola
Per this and these two press releases, we also need to closely scrutinize and/or revert his contributions to Coca-Cola. It appears this user has been significantly abusing Wikipedia to provide support for his personal agenda. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; This is an interesting point, but a point felt is mute in that as long as the data and documentation I provide is accurate and authentic and backed-up based on my world-class accepted citations - what does it matter how it is used by me or anybody else, especially after the fact? Or should I say, long after the fact? This is precisely what people do with data gleaned from Wikipedia subject sources - which by the way is uncopyrighted and free for anybody to use verbatim even! Standard copyrighted encyclopedias, books, or dictionaries too are used to support whatever it is elected to be used for. Nothing new, sinister or illegal here. It seems that such a notion as stated above actually can be better reasoned to be an attack on my civil liberties and freedom of choice.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Also, the earliest known and only known Coca Cola photograph from 1888 that was up on Wikipedia in Coca Cola was actually in pictured in the 1950 book shown next to it in the photo, and the book was written by the founder of Coca Cola Asa Candler's son Charles Howard Candler, and was signed by him! All the editors here talked about 'not properly researched material' being used in my contributions. Why are such editors talking with such 'stupidity?' How much more incompetent can such statements get?
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; By the way, I own the copyrights to the Beatles backstage negatives (500) and is on record in Washington, D.C at the Library of Congress. They taken by Datebook Magazine who toured with the Beatles during their last concert in 1966 these photos are in my 1996 book Wikipedia has been using for ten years or more as source material. So it would it be part of my "personal agenda" if I choose to upload any of these images to Wikicommons taken out of my book for use in Wikipedia, ten years after the fact that Wikipedia has been relying on my book? It that a no no too? You make no sense NorthBySouthBaranof. Your argument is just ‘goody-feely’ gobblygoop it seems. Wouldn’t you stand this to be a reasonable assessment NorthBySouthBaranof?
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Why are all of you so-called editors coming up with unsubstatiated opinionated "rants" based on heresay assumptions - all which only stifle the expansion of new knowledge and intellectual thought? You all should be blocked from Wikipedia because your thought is "disruptive" of the expansion of man's knowledge. All that you are bantering about is the complete antitihesis of what Wikipedia is supposed to represent.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; I think that in light of the world-class expertise I have clearly exhibited here with world-class links which can not be fundimentally challenged or refuted by anybody here within this forum - outside of mere conjecture - I am asking that all of my blocks be removed with out further ado - and also - I ask that my Coca Cola and William Fothergill Cooke contributions be reposted back in their entirety.
Those contributions begin here, by User:Epochwiki77. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- See more at: http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/Wikipedia:ANI#Richard_Warren_Lipack
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Once the William Fothergill Cooke documentary is out, Wikipedia will start its downhill slide that can not be reversed, if the travesty exhibited here in not adminstratively reversed.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; I have been on radio in England in 1979 and in the United States on several occasions over the years and have been the subject of front page cover stories in two newspapers. One was in the Morristown, NJ DAILY RECORD on the day man launched Apollo 11 for the Moon on July 16, 1969. I was the lead story above the astronauts - Aldrin, Collins and Armstrong, and most recently I was in a cover story on the "Wall Strreet Journal on Dec. 27th (web) and Dec. 28th (print), 2012.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324731304578189533350063480.html
And in Barron's;
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB10001424127887324731304578189533350063480.html
And in the Daily Mail of London;
And in the Australian Herald of Australia;
ww.australianherald.com/index.php/sid/211666336/scat/ae0def0d9b645403/ht/Wrong-picture-of-cokes-founder-identified-at-auction
And in the Dublin Herald of Ireland;
And in India;
http://in.news.yahoo.com/wrong-picture-cokes-founder-identified-auction-092251224.html
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Perhaps the Encyclopedia Britanica would have interest in all of this?
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; I also strongly urge that only professional editors with my world-class professional qualifications (and I can send much much more) be assigned to work with me in any of my endeavors that I may choose to write about in the future, if I choose to continue with such work on Wikipedia. Also, I would like to properly address any issues that are accurately addressed by a qualified editor regarding my Tila Tequila contribution with respect to any pre-conceived notions all seem to have developed herein in light of ‘Kevin Wayne Williams’ / Kww ’s unfounded orchestrated 'rant’ beyond reason.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; By the way, in 1989 I discovered the actual letter Edison wrote the day he invented the light bulb -discussing his work on the "electric light." I can add an image of that to Wikicommons and Wikipedia but why bother? It just so happened to also handle part of the liquidation of the Edison estate's paper and artifact archives in New Jersey.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; But what do I know? According to all of your editors, I am 'just seeking to perpetuate hoaxs.'
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Here's something I wrote - that is cited to be now in a museum... discussing the 1881 electric lamp I also discovered in the 1980’s that came out of Edison's house in New Jersey..........
http://www.cmog.org/library/edisons-first-commercial-lighting-fixture
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Incidentally, look up "Keith vs. U.S." or Judge Damon Keith or Watergate. Judge Damon Keith is a Federal District Curt Judge and I produced 2 1/2 hours of exclusive footage of him in his Federal Buidling office at Detriot to be culled for use in a movie I am making where he talks about the Wategate Affair My 1996 book is also in Judge Keith's 4.2 million dollar library at Wayne State University that was dedicated 2 or 3 years ago in Michigan. The judge doesn't think I "rant" on "crazy" topics - which I have emailed him on numerous occasions. If Honorable Keith thought I was a "crackpot" as this forum is quick to claim, why would I be granted the longest exclusive interview the Judge has ever granted to anyone? Note that Judge Keith is on a plaque going in to the FBI headquarters in Washington, DC and is on bronze plaques in 300 courthouses across the nation.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; If I was a 'hoaxster' as Kww seeks to imply, wouldn't it stand to reason that I would not have been granted this major interview with a still acting District Federal Court Judge talking about such a important topic as the truth behind Watergate - that has been covered up! Just think about it! Call his office. They'll confirm the interview.
http://www.answers.com/topic/damon-keith
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; Upon request I will be most happy to send to any email address a photograph Judge Keith with his arm around me in his office.
Comment by Richard Warren Lipack; In any event, as Kim Dent-Brown and others have spoken of dropping the "hammer" on Richard Warren Lipack, they all have yet to witness the dropping of the biggest 'hammer' that they will ever likely get to see - that is about to come down; when the motion picture documentary in the last stages of production is released shortly to the world about the William Fothergill Cooke manuscript journal. The big question is: Will all of the folks at Wikipedia get their 'act' together by that time! Certainly some prudent minds reading and considering all of this will propitiously address the points of contention herein and come to a formidable conclusion.
Richard Warren Lipack Richard Warren Lipack (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC) / Epochwiki77Richard Warren Lipack (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Please read our guide to appealing blocks; you have no reasonable expectation that any Wikipedia volunteer will wade through a 102,234 character block request. I suggest that some other medium than Wikipedia will be more suitable for your needs. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.