User talk:Jeremystalked

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

"Gang stalking"

You have offered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cause stalking to create a gang stalking article that refers to this in the context of being a delusional belief system, something for which I believe we have sufficient reliable sources.

I think a way forward would be to add this material to the persecutory delusion article, and to create a pointer to it from the stalking article.

In the meantime, I would be pleased if you would not imply that other editors are psychopaths, or naive dupes, or somehow part of a conspiracy to spread disinformation; please see WP:CIVIL.

You might also want to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. -- The Anome (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice you originally offered to unprotect Gang stalking and speedily-delete Cause stalking under the condition that the Gang stalking only cover WP:V information (the articles about gang stalking delusions). Then you changed your tack.[1] I have to tell you, your revision history paints the picture of someone who is dead set on preventing useful information from being presented to actual victims (or people who believe they are victims).

Why don't we do this:

• Make Gang stalking semi-protected - the frequent injections of unverifiable material in this area have historically come from anonymous users.
• Speedily delete Cause stalking.
• Put a reference to Gang stalking (in the context of persecutory delusions, under the group stalking section) into stalking.

Reasonable?

I'll see what I can do to tone my user page down.Jeremystalked _{T C} 17:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin coverup hoax

Redirects go to redirects for deletion, not articles for deletion. I have fixed this for you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Abusive editing

Your most recent edits, creating the pages List of disinformation agents and List of psychopaths in wikipedia, and then redirecting them both to Wikipedia:List of administrators, are clearly abusive. Although I would like to assume good faith about your activities here, they are beginning to seem increasingly like trolling to me. The most charitable interpretation I can put on these edits is that you are attempting to create disruption to prove a point. Please stop this. -- The Anome (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RNEUTRAL. By the way, a typical tactic employed by psychopathic authority figures is to abuse the system they've been entrusted with, and then blame others when they try to expose the abuses. Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 19:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And don't worry, I'm unlikely to re-create those particular redirects. I thought they would be useful, but clearly the community - and by "the community" we mean "you" - has spoken. Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 19:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right that WP:RNEUTRAL does not apply to redirects. However, the rules on civility, personal attacks, and disruptive editing certainly do, and it's hard to construe these edits as anything other as violating both.

I doubt whether you would get any different response from any other administrator, or indeed from the community at large. (If you doubt me about this, please feel free to take this for review by other administrators, or by the wider community.) Please bear in mind that other editors here, including administrators, are real people, just like you. Characterising other editors (in this case, all Wikipedia administrators) as psychopaths and "disinformation agents", just because they require you to abide by the rules of an online community that you choose to participate in, is a blatant breach of Wikipedia's civility principle.

Please understand that Wikipedia is not a conspiracy aimed at suppressing your beliefs, nor are other editors part of a cabal of people with personality disorders. However, whether you like it or not, Wikipedia's standard for article entries is verifiability, not truth. I can assure you that Wikipedia's rules are not in principle opposed to your ideas; many fringe beliefs are represented by articles here. For particularly controversial beliefs, you will need will need to exert extra effort to show that your contributions meet these stringent standards. The guidelines in WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE exist to deal with this. Like Wikipedia's other guidelines or polices, they existed long before you created this account, and are not aimed at you or your beliefs specifically.

The Web is an open system with many outlets for propagating personal beliefs; if you don't want to abide by these rules -- and WP:CIVIL is one of Wikipedia's five core rules -- you are welcome to publish your views elsewhere. -- The Anome (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I have never said Wikipedia is a conspiracy.

If editors want to play at being impartial wiki-computers and they get exposed as biased, or social climbers, or axe-grinders - that's their problem, not mine. Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 18:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

From WP:CIVIL: "2. Other uncivil behaviors... (a) Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves... "[2]

(in reference to "it's hard to construe your acts as anything other than... a blatant breach of Wikipedia's civility principle." on my talk page. [3])

Also: there's only one other editor I've ever had repeated run-ins with, and in an ironic twist given my particular field of interest and the phrasing used to describe it, that editor seems to have developed paranoid delusions of Wikipedia users gang-stalking her, and left.[4]

Just saying.Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 19:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Political abuse of psychiatry

Feel free to add content concerning political reprisals to the article - it's a good idea. Claritas § 19:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Added a bit about Russ Tice and a recent psychiatric reprisal directed at an NYPD officer.Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 02:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

False memory syndrome hoax listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect False memory syndrome hoax. Since you had some involvement with the False memory syndrome hoax redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

and even more you know

Talk:Donald_Ewen_Cameron(Monster of MKULTRA) He does seem to turn up in the strangest places trying to enforce a certain POV. What's the starting pay at the agency these days? In addition to the sum one pockets when they sell their soul, that's an attractive conpensation package. Added a little NPOV on the other article, its relevance is VERY clear when one sees the article's original form. Batvette (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

a bit off topic but the current "I'm too proud to take my meds so I'll call myself a TI" scizo at FFCHS (one Joshua Copeland, finds great significance in license plates) recently made the great discovery of this wikipedia place..... and determined you are a disinfo agent.http://groups.google.com/group/ffchs-daily-harassment-log He asked me my take on it and I just said that wiki seems intent on protraying our problem as in the imagination of scizophrenics.... "why do you think that is, Josh?"

He has admitted to being prescribed clozeril, read up on that stuff. The side effects killed many people in Europe when it was first introduced, yet they brought it back for severe cases. Joshua is surely a candidate for a straightjacket, and because of people like him, we have people like the anome assuming they're all like that, and I am afraid to say this is our biggest problem now.

We've been encouraging anyone who tells a story similar to ours to join us as "getting the word out" seemed most important.

However we only encouraged people suffering from persecutory delusions to join us, and find validation and vanity in the cause. I think the numbers are over 50%. And growing fast. Wannabes. Our built in self destruction, and I must say it's hard for me to feel compassion for people like this who will end up perpetuating a real problem real people are suffering from just so they don't have to admit they are crazy. Batvette (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, I've dropped out of the conference calls. I no longer think there's an enormous number of people getting this kind of treatment (although if my High Tech Harassment by Proxy framework is correct, very large numbers of people are at least touched by the technology at some point). At the risk of seeming like we have delusions of grandeur, we have to look at the characteristics that cause people to get this treatment in the first place.

I've figured out it's a waste of life energy trying to win the various factions over. Many of them still don't get the Matrix they've been trapped in, and may never get it. Plus, as you say, increased visibility for this kind of issue draws out the nut cases.

Too bad about the criticism, but I've dealt with much worse.Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 18:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

holysmoke.org is a personal site

http://holysmoke.org/kontact.htm

It's not a reliable source. Please find some other sources for your assertions.Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 04:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not use a personal site as a source. But Ok, have it your way then. I have removed the convenience link so now people wanting to verify it will have to dig up the newsletter themselves. I have readded the link to the collection of old newsletters you deleted so now it at least is a bit easier. // Liftarn (talk)

skepticfiles.org

Convenience links to skepticfiles.org are probably inappropriate, but that does not mean that the rest of the citation is inappropriate. For example, in James Randi you deleted a citation to a journal, Skeptical Eye, simply because it had a link to skepticfiles.org. Please review your work and restore the citations that don't depend on self-created pages at skepticfiles.org.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If a citation goes to Skeptical Eye then that's the source. The lack of a convenience link does invalidate the source. Any citation that lists a source aside from skepticfiles should be kept, with just the URL link deleted. If you have a specific reason to think that a source has been misquoted or mis-summarized, then that case needs to be made on an individual basis.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Your task is made harder because some editors didn't fill in all of the citation information. For example, this link [5] which you removed from Uri Geller [6] should be reworked to cite the underlying source, Skeptical Eye.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd go further than Will nand state that WP:CITE#Convenience links to skepticfiles.org, for sources published elsewhere, is acceptable -- as long as there isn't a question over the accuracy of the reproduction. I would also note that you deleted two further references unrelated to skepticfiles.org in this edit, and that I've had to revert you a number of times for inaccurately applying WP:SELFPUB in deleting material (generally failure to notice that it was "sources of information about themselves, ... in articles about themselves or their activities"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

skepticfiles.org/skeptictank.org seems kind of dicey and unprofessional. Not sure it's a good idea to use it for convenience links. But thanks for the tutorial.Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 05:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

To simplify things, I'm going to revert most of your edits. It'll be easier to fix the citations if most of the data is already there.   Will Beback  talk  09:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted fewer than I'd thought. Many of the links were to emails or "open letters" that wouldn't qualify as sources anyway. Even if they aren't all removed, citations to that source should be checked as many of them are probably low quality.   Will Beback  talk  09:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)