User talk:Boss Reality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Boss Reality! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Stubblebine[edit]

I've reverted you simply because Liberty for Life fails our sourcing policy and guideline at WP:Verify and WP:RS. I wouldn't expect a new user to know this. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

And you've been reverted by another editor for using a conspiracy theory site for this. Please read the links. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

IMDB is not a reliable source. seems to also fail WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LorChat 09:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheLongTone (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Stop icon

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

  • If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
  • If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
  • If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. The film itself is made up of YouTube videos which are presumably copyright, hence we can't link to it as the film itself is a copyright violation Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I didn't know that. Anyway a search around Wikipedia and one finds links to sites that are exactly same in structure and content as the one(s) I linked to. (Boss Reality (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC))
Actually the IMDB site is probably ok. A link directly to the film or the archive site would not be, as the film itself seems to be a massive copyright violation. The credits at the end of the film don't mean that they obtained the material with permission from the copyright owners. Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

You need to read WP:MOVIE to understand what we mean when we say a film is notable, which is very different than what I think is your meaning. You also need to understand our sourcing policy, see WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Boss Reality, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Boss Reality! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill‎ and original research[edit]

Please read WP:NOR. We can't say something is obvious. We might be able to quote someone saying that, but we can't decide what is related to what, that's original research. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Rima Laibow for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rima Laibow is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rima Laibow until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. LuckyLouie (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Apparently because I am insisting that you follow our policy and guidelines on sources, particularly for living people (see WP:BLP you think I may be vandalising or trying to bury a connection between Stubblebine and Laibow. That's ridiculous. What I want to know is if you've bothered to read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS and if so how do you justify using fringe websites and self-published books as sources? Or a book published 11 years ago as proof they are married today? Wasn't Stubblebine married before? And as I said on this BLP talk page, we've had situations when we have known someone was dead but there was no way we could state that in their article due to lack of reliable sources.

It's hard to believe that you have read the guidelines and polices that other editors and myself have tried to get you to read so that you will understand why your edits are being reverted or articles taken to AfD. In discussions you don't refer to them. You really need to start doing so. I don't mean to be harsh but this is wasting good editors' time. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Dougwellwer, you know very well that there are other references that I was linking to to support that Laibow & Stubblebine are married. Many others besides an 11 year old book. It would be and is highly inaccurate for you to make out or try to say that this is one that I'm using as a reference. There are others around and if you would please take the time to have a look I'm sure you'd be able to find one that would satisfy both yorself and myself. Please do it! As far as vandalising, as I stated, I said I hope that I'm wrong and this is not what you have been doing. Sadly your edits and deletions have been somewhat unconstructive. (Boss Reality (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC))
  • You suggested the book, not me. And whether my edits are unconstructive depends upon your point of view. You think they are unconstructive because they don't help you, I think that you simply are new and don't understand our policies and guidelines. And I have looked. It's tricky - one of the sources we use mentions his wife Rima, but not her surname so far as I can see, so we can't use it. Just as we can't name the person he committed adultery with, although it's pretty clear who it was. Have you read the links? Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Albert Stubblebine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Good Sir, you need to take on board some of your own advice because you have been doing what you have accused me of. (Boss Reality (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC))
Hardly. Did you read the links? I've reverted only twice this year, yesterday and on the 17th. You've reverted (including restoring material removed by others) about 5 times. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Not quite the way you say it good sir. Not quite like that at all. I admit I have done it onece and also tried to improve but with all the hammering that this article has been getting I can only keep track of things as best I can. There are much more consteructive ways you can help this article if you wanted. (Boss Reality (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for June 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rima Laibow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alex Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thankyou for letting me know DPL bot. I'll make sure that I be aware next time.

(Boss Reality (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC))

Anything ending in 'bot' should be an automated script, not a person. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, good to know. Thanks for that. (Boss Reality (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC))

More to refer to[edit]

"more or less stated"[edit]

Please stop posting illiterate gibberish like this into the Rima Laibow article. Either she stated something, or she didn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for posting illerterate gibberish. (Boss Reality (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC))

"Reliable sources"[edit]

I really need to understand what you think we mean by "reliable sources". We do require WP:COMPETENCE. I presume you have read the links you've been given. So let me know how you understand the phrase? Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have posted some reliable sources my friend. Problem with the attempts at censorship of an article about a controversial person and the piranha like attacks it hasn't been easy to sort things. Makes it very hard for Wikipedia contributors like myself. Some of the references to books that she has contributed to have been notable and not self published either. Problem is, the best way to get an article deleted here is to create one about someone who goes against the official version of things. Rima Laibow is one such person and that is the issue here sir. (Boss Reality (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC))

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rima Laibow may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • com, OCA , & Mercola.com Rated as Most 'Trustworthy' Health News Websites in the USA]</ref> This was founded by Albert Stubblebine and Rima Laibow in 2004.<ref>Life Spirit [http://www.
  • 18943.cfm Health Freedom Citizens Petition to FDA: STOP the "Swine Flu" Vaccine Rush to Approval]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rima Laibow may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • com, OCA , & Mercola.com Rated as Most 'Trustworthy' Health News Websites in the USA]</ref> This was founded by Albert Stubblebine and Rima Laibow in 2004.<ref>Life Spirit [http://www.
  • 18943.cfm Health Freedom Citizens Petition to FDA: STOP the "Swine Flu" Vaccine Rush to Approval]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gary Null may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 18943.cfm Health Freedom Citizens Petition to FDA: STOP the "Swine Flu" Vaccine Rush to Approval]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gary Null may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 18943.cfm Health Freedom Citizens Petition to FDA: STOP the "Swine Flu" Vaccine Rush to Approval]</ref> has been a guest on his show in December 2012 discussing possible causes behind the rise in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Codex Alimentarius may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Health Association http://ahha.org/codextaylor2003.htm Codex 2003 - The EU tightens its grip]</ref> He had stated that laws food laws of nations that are members of Codex Alimentarius would

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Censorship and vandalism[edit]

Below is what I have posted in the Talk Section of the Codex Alimentarius article. I have added a new section Vocal concern to Codex Alimentarius and opposition to the article. This contains people in vocal opposition to Codex Alimentarius. Now I have no doubt in my mind that there is an angenda here to censor certain information that relate to certain issues. Having been here for a short time I have had 2 articles deleted. In my opinion, the second one was deliberately and strategically vandalised in a way to make it seem worthless in the eyes of others. Perhaps some people who normally would rescue and improve such an article wouldn't when it was made such a mess. Now I've addeed this section here with the nammes of people that some here may find controversial. I know that some here would do anything to censor this info. Wikipedia should not be censored and if it continues I will take the matter further. Thanks. (Boss Reality (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC))

You are getting tiresome[edit]

You are making threats and failing to accept good faith and making false accusations of WP:VANDALISM. If they weren't so feeble I might consider you've had enough rope, but I strongly advise you to stop. Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Dougweller - Good Sir, I'm not making threats. I'm just stating what I have observed my good fellow. And I have to say is that I totally dispute what you have said here. Totally dispute it all my fiend. Totally dispute what you have stated. (Boss Reality (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC))
"Take the matter further" seems like a threat, saying other editors will be reported also looks like a thread, and it doesn't appear that you have read WP:VANDALISM. If you think there is vandalism occuring, report it at WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
..... big sigh ... Please sir ! Give me a break. Brother please! (Boss Reality (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC))
That comment] really does border on a legal threat, or some type of threat. We don't allow ANY types of threats or intimidation here. We discuss things and work them out in a collaborative effort to reach an acceptable compromise.
Do you work for the National Health Federation? -- Brangifer (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Reply to BullRangifer aka Reply to Brangifer , Don't be silly! and please my friend, if you're trying to twist my words around you won't get anywhere and please stop it. Now I have made no threats of any kind. What I have stated is that I believe Dougweller is deliberately censoring articles because some of what I posted is info about notable people in the Anti-GM and Anti-Codex movements who "Challenge the official version" of some things. Now regarless if they're right or wrong in what they say and do, they are an event and a fact and all notable. I believe that Dougweller would rather these things not be here on Wikipedia and as a result of that he's deliberately ruined articles by deconstructive editing. Now if ever in any way I'm wrong about my good friend Dougweller then I'd most humbly apologise and hope for his forgivness. But .... and in a way, it really pains me to say this about my brother man Dougweller and others here, there are people who think they're doing the right thing by stopping certain facts beimng known. Also there are others who know they're doing the wrong thing and they still go ahead and do it. They censor and destroy articles. If Dougweller or antyone else fits in to the category of just overzealousness and a good fellow or gal being mislead then I hope that my fellow human being realizes that Wikipedia is about info, both good and bad. Like it or hate what comes here in the info form, we've all got to wear it. And that goes for me too !!! I'm no different from the rest of the good folk here.

Now as for threats, I've made nothing of the sort. All I said is that if this (What I believe to be) unconstructive behavior continues, I'd take the matter futher. Now I know that when people see things untoward here they report the matter to senior staff. If in some way I'm unique and I am not allowed to engage in this process then please let me know. So there are 2 questions I'd like to put to you BullRangifer ......

>>> Am I or am I not allowed to report or bring to the attention of senior admin or site owners, things that I believe to be wrong and unfair ????

>>> Am I or am I not allowed to edit articles or create articles that may have controversial matters people in them? And further expansion on this question, Should I not add things that may offend or anger someone because it may conflict their belief system or offend their political or other beliefs? Should I not add any content that may give an indication that a certain organisation may not be doing the right thing?
Thanks (Boss Reality (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC))

Of course you are allowed to complain, but Doug Weller is an admin, so you're already dealing with leadership. Since he's not abusing his admin tools, you won't get anywhere, except to damage your credibility and make enemies.
You are allowed to report on notable issues, as long as you use reliable sources and frame and balance the issues properly. Even then, other editors have a right to object and rework or even delete what you have written. In that case, you can discuss the matter on the article's talk page and seek to work out a compromise.
I notice you repeatedly claim that editors are trying to keep some information out of Wikipedia. That's not true, and such an accusation is a personal attack and a failure to AGF. You aren't allowed to say such things, so don't repeat it. You MUST assume good faith, since there are most likely other, policy-based, reasons for why your attempts meet resistance.
The flip side is also true, in that you are not allowed to post anything here. Resistance to such attempts by you is interpreted by you as an attempt to keep some information out of Wikipedia. Do you see how that works? We have policies and guidelines which dictate which types of information can be included. Learn to follow them. Objections to your edits will often point to the policies you are violating, and if you learn and don't repeat those errors, you will establish a good track record. A positive learning curve is what we're looking for. It builds your reputation and credibility, and in the end that is the most important currency you possess here. It will save you from lots of trouble and get you out of messes.
Now please answer my question: Do you work for the National Health Federation? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes please, Boss Reality, do you work for the NHF or are associated with it in some way or with Laibow? So far as my alleged censorship goes, I note that people often cry censorship when they don't understand or like our policies and guidelines, and I'd argue that my edits have been a sometimes futile attempt to get you to follow them and to ensure that your edits are not simply WP:PROMOTION which IMHO is what they look like. As for senior staff, we have Administrators and 'senior' (ie experienced) editors, and I fall into both categories, but we don't actually have any staff at all. The Wikimedia foundation does, but they are not 'senior staff' in relationship to this Wikipedia - they write software, maintain the servers, fundraise, relate to other organisations, etc. but aren't 'senior staff' in relationship to us. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Reply to BullRangifer aka Brangifer Post 06:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC) , Well written my good friend and somewhat misleading, or rather incorrect about my actions. , I feel that you're either not in touch with what has been going on or possibly by some means trying to twist things around here a little. I'd like to think that it's unintentional. Regarding Censorship here on Wikipedia, well I'm not the only one who hs brought it up and I'm fairly certain I won't be the last either.

Quote - Doug Weller is an admin, so you're already dealing with leadership. Since he's not abusing his admin tools, you won't get anywhere, except to damage your credibility and make enemies.
Reply Sorry my friend, I'm in total disagreement here. I've experienced different.
Quote - Now please answer my question: Do you work for the National Health Federation?
Reply, No, not that org. I work for the Nice Happy Fountain. And not the one in Church Crookham either. The Nice Happy Fountain is me my friend. The sheer aburdity of your question has hit my happy spot and no matter how hard I try, I have to say my good friend that I cannot take any kind of offence to that remark or even bother to ponder on the questioners actual intent. You've put a smile on my face and bless you for that. (Boss Reality (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC))

Reply to Dougweller post 09:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC):::::::: Quote: Yes please, Boss Reality, do you work for the NHF or are associated with it in some way or with Laibow? So far as my alleged censorship goes, I note that people often cry censorship when they don't understand or like our policies and guidelines, and I'd argue that my edits have been a sometimes futile attempt to get you to follow them and to ensure that your edits are not simply WP:PROMOTION which IMHO is what they look like. As for senior staff, we have Administrators and 'senior' (ie experienced) editors, and I fall into both categories, but we don't actually have any staff at all. The Wikimedia foundation does, but they are not 'senior staff' in relationship to this Wikipedia - they write software, maintain the servers, fundraise, relate to other organisations, etc. but aren't 'senior staff' in relationship to us. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Reply - My good friend. Possibly there may be some folks that cry censorship when they don't like or understand your policy guidelines but I'm not one of them. You insinuation that my edits are WP:PROMOTION falls at your feet my brother. I've already had a nice moment of amusement at the absurd question by BullRangifer and I guess I could have another one with yours. It seems that you're cementing my suspicions. I'd still like to think otherwise and hope that you're someone who is of "The Old Guard" desperately trying to hang on to and protect some kind of ideal. I'm hopeful my dear friend that you'd then see the light and we all have to take the good info that we like and the info we don't like. Info is info regardless and to try and block some of it just to keep the vision is not a good thing. Heck, I'm probably just the same as you in some things that I feel. I'd like to control info and have that power. But sadly things I may crave, I have to deny myself because .... It ... ain't ... right and it ain't fair on others. Best wishes to you my brother and I do live in hope that we can oneday somehow work on good things to ensure that info is available. Perhaps if not here then somewhere else. (Boss Reality (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC))
Boss Reality, I believe it would very much be in your best interests to directly respond regarding whether you work for the NHF or not. Please directly respond to the question. Your recent history, which is perhaps the totality of your edit history, is bluntly not a good one. You appear to have little if any real grasp of our basic policies and guidelines, and apparently are making little if any effort to change that. Regrettably, people who disrupt things for too long tend to be considered for sanctions of some sort. You are coming rather too close to that line right now. At this point, dircectly responding to the NHF question that three people have felt obliged to ask would be very wise. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Reply to John Carter - I hope that this question is not a veiled accusation disguised as a question with the intent of discrediting me in the eyes of others as it would make me very disappointed my friend. The simple answer is I'm not affiliated with any organisation and I don't personally know anyone in the NHF and hope I don't need to. Your question (if it is a veiled accusation) would be most clumsy and makes you look silly. I hope it's an interest that is genuine my friend and you're simply misled. (Boss Reality (talk))
Futher to my reply to John Carter, and Quote John Carter - Boss Reality, I believe it would very much be in your best interests to directly respond regarding whether you work for the NHF or not. Please directly respond to the question.
Reply: You seem to speak with some kind of authority where you almost demand that I reply. Over the last few hours, I've thought a bit more about your question and I have to say that you don't appear to be that naiive and I hope here my brother that I'm worng. Because If I'm not and my suspicions are correct then I'm saddened that another of my fellow man is playing a game without the right stuff so to epeak.
Quote John Carter: - Your recent history, which is perhaps the totality of your edit history, is bluntly not a good one. You appear to have little if any real grasp of our basic policies and guidelines, and apparently are making little if any effort to change that. Regrettably, people who disrupt things for too long tend to be considered for sanctions of some sort. You are coming rather too close to that line right now. At this point, dircectly responding to the NHF question that three people have felt obliged to ask would be very wise. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Reply - I have an understanding here my friend and I understand this ..... There are people here for reasons they haven't disclosed or are yet to, engage in censorship by being biased against certain articles and edits. This is the editing out and deletion of certain people or organisations that oppose some major companies. My stance is one of making sure that this website remains a source of information and certain people with particular belief systems or certain people with vested interests don't continue to deny other people access to information what ever it may be. Now you said three people have felt obliged to ask. Well if you are referring to DougWellers question and maybe ... possibly another clumsy attempt to discredit me with a veiled accusation wrapped up in a question then that's two including you. Who's the other one? By the way DougWeller is the one who on more than one occasion deliberately edited out info about Dr Rima Laibow being Major Albert Stubblebine's wife but then saw fit to edit in Deliberately info about Stubblebine committing adultery with a female psychiatrist when everone would easily workout that the psychiatrist was Dr Laibow. And who knows, his marriage may have been over by then. But that's beside the point. His edit was either reckless, vindictive or plain stupid and that of a child. You take your choice. I would like to think that my friend Dougweller is none of those but my observations tell me otherwise.

And as for the NHF, I don't know if that organisation and Scott Tips are decent people or controlled opposition. That's not the reason for my edits and article creation. Mine is that this is a public website and I stand against certain types of censorship. I WILL NOT stand by idle and watch this place turned into an extension of a certain news (and that's a joke) organisation with some one like (Fictional name) Bull O'Really parroting a script that has been written by people who decide what we're allowed to know. (Boss Reality (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC))

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Boss, this isn't a "public website". It's an encyclopedia anyone can help build provided they agree to abide by its policies. You've read our policies, yes? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Scott Tips for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scott Tips is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Tips until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Scott Tips. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. This edit[1] - see the talk page and the AfD. Dougweller (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scott Tips, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CCFA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Allison Mackie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Thompson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to improve your research skills[edit]

First there was the claim that Goth Girls was a tv series. Then there was B.O.G.E. - you obviously don't know what this is. I wonder if you found this.[2] You obviously didn't find these.[3] [4] Seems pretty trivial though, very few Google hits.[5] Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of C. Courtney Joyner for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article C. Courtney Joyner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Courtney Joyner until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Allison Mackie for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Allison Mackie is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Mackie until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Health freedom movement may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • College of Medicine and has practiced drug-free, natural medicine for decades. <ref>[The Hindu]] July 5, 2006 [http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/rima-laibow-to-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Willow Hale for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Willow Hale is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willow Hale until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Binksternet (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Totally unfair[edit]

What's the point in arguing as there has been an agenda to ban me from the beginning.

  • WegianWarrior = Somneone that idles like a car with no foot on the gas and then when come deletion time, it swings into action.
  • Dougweller = Organiser of some deletionists. Many offsite communication. Have a look at Lucky Louie and the usual crew that follow Douweller to the deletions and you'll see what I have noticed.

The clues are here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rima_Laibow if you're interested. (Boss Reality (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC))