User talk:Neilmc

Welcome!

Hello, Neilmc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Gamaliel 22:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Gamaliel 23:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking for articles to work on?

Hello, Neilmc. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. Based on your previous edits, I have made a list of articles you might like to work on. I hope you find this useful. -- SuggestBot 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was it removed?

The question is, why did you put it in in the first place? (Re: [1]) --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it is informative about Bush. Who are you ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilmnc (talk • contribs) .

I was the one who reverted your addition. What exactly does it inform the reader of? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush's carefree attitude towards war. Why remove it without looking at it ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilmc (talk • contribs) .

Oh I did look at it, I just wanted to see what you thought about it. I don't really think it's appropriate... is the president not allowed to laugh? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Before announcing War ? Would you be in a laughing mood ? You can't possibly have downloaded the video in 10 seconds so don't pretend you looked at it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilmc (talk • contribs) .

Note that you added the link into the page at 22:37 and that I reverted the edit where you added it in at 22:54 and 22:55. I had over 15 minutes to watch the video.

Regardless, if you would like to propose the addition of this link to the article, please propose it on Talk:George W. Bush... busy and sometimes controversial articles like this are typically built on concensus. I will add the request for you if you like. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Note I added at 22:37 and someone else removed it at 22:37 then I re added it at 21:55 and you removed it at 21:55. I'm not bothered about it, was just an experiment anyway so forget it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilmc (talk • contribs) .

Conspriracy theories

Hello Neilmc. I think you misunderstand why I'm removing this story from the LBJ page. Its inclusion is fine on pages relating to Howard Hunt and on pages relating to other theories about Kennedys assassination.

Unfortunately there is no definitive proof that LBJ was involved in the assassination, and on an Encyclopedia its all about what we can prove not what we 'think' happened. That is why I have been removing this particular allegation against Johnson. Until there is evidence its simply opinion and as you know, we don't do opinion on Wiki.

As a non-american perhaps I can see this a little more clearly than people who are closer to these issues. Thats why my main interest here is in seeing that we follow the article guidelines and not include a unprovable allegation from what is, in the final analysis a very dubious source. Galloglass 18:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Galloglass,

OK, so you are happy that the confession was made, at least we've cleared that up. Your problem is that there is no definitive evidence that LBJ killed JFK. Can I ask you what evidence you would accept as definitive ? Like I said there is a wealth of evidence out there, I can recommend watching The Guilty Men episode of The Men who killed Kennedy which is available on youtube, if you need convincing.

If LBJ did have JFK murdered, do you think that this is a relevant point to include in the article ? I think it is very important, I think that there needs to be at least some reference to it on the page. And there is no opinion in my statement is there ? It is a simple statement of fact. There is no POV involved so this is an erroneous claim on your part.

May I ask what you believe about the assassination ? Do you believe the Lone Nut story or do you accept it was a conspiracy ? If it was a conspiracy then LBJ must have been onboard mustn't he ? There is no way it would have gone ahead without at least his approval, otherwise the conspirators risk the new president tracking them down.

I also wouldn't consider Howard Hunt a dubious source. He is the perfect source, he organised the Watergate break in so cleary he is an insider doing dirty tricks for the president. How could there possibly be a better source for a story like this ? Are you aware of Hunt's career ? He was a high flyer in the CIA, head of several CIA stations including Mexico city and he organised the coup in Guatemala and was heavily involved in the Bay of Pigs debacle. He was right there in the centre of history in this period.

By the way I am from the North West of England like you . .

I'm sorry wikipedia is not a conspiracy theory website. Simply put, these view have no place in an Encyclopedia. Galloglass 12:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, so your argument is you have no argument. Hmmmmm. I think wikipedia should be a repository for facts not a place where you can air your opinions. My edit contains only facts. You removed it because of your opinion. This should not be allowed to continue. Neilmc 12:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I removed it BECAUSE it is OPINION. And as you know, opinion has no place in an Encyclopedia. I have no idea why you think this is a fact. It is merely one theory among many behind the Kennedy assasination. Galloglass 12:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remove this statement because including it would go against the [[wikipedia:|neutral point of view|]] policy. This policy demands that points of view are represented proportionately. I cannot see that this has been widely accepted or even reported in the mainstream media. Compare, for example this New York Post article. If you can point to such acceptance then I'll be happy to withdraw this objection but until then this information does not belong in the Lyndon Johnson article (perhaps the Kennedy assassination theories article would be more appropriate.) It would also be useful if any further discussion of this took place at Talk:Lyndon B. Johnson. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The NY post article is not even about the deathbed confession, it is about Hunt's book where he says he knows nothing about the assassination, so that has no relevance at all. If you don't know anything about this subject why attempt to participate ? Plus are we really using the NY Post as a useful reference source now ? What next, the National Enquirer ? You don't seem to understand what an opinion is either but I suppose it isn't really my place to teach you. Why don't you look it up ? There is no opinion in my statement, it is a statement of fact. You both seem intent on removing information from the article for reasons grounded in pedantry. I'm sure you're happy with your efforts, well done.