User talk:Nonconnah77

Welcome!

Hello, Nonconnah77, 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 talk 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- WikHead (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to promote your ideas about Timothy Tyson over Wikipedia. Several edits have been reverted. Per WP:BRD, you should next discuss them on the respective article's talk page, not simply re-revert the edits. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JoannaSerah I'm not trying to promote my ideas. Shelby's Wiki page is advertising and promoting Timothy Tyson's works. The POW website is simply calling out Tim Tyson for falsely advertising someone as a Vietnam Veteran that never served in Vietnam. Now does someone on your end have a problem with Vietnam Veterans? I would appreciate you reverting my edit back or remove Blood Done Sign My Name on Shelby's Wiki page. ThanksNonconnah77 (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Nonconnah77[reply]

I have no problem with any veterans. Silly to question that. Please discuss reasons for inclusion on the article's talk page. What is listed on Shelby, North Carolina's page is merely that some of the movie was filmed there. That's all. That is not promoting any ideology or bias for/against Timothy Tyson. It is unnecessary to try to plug someone else's viewpoint about the author of a book on that article. Several other Wikipedia articles where you have pushed that not-generally-accepted opinion absolutely don't need that there, either. It really only could possibly go on the book's article or on Timothy Tyson's article, if it is accepted as a reliable source. Which, unfortunately, I doubt. Again, please discuss on the article's talk page why it should be included in those pages you want it to be on. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’m glad to know you don’t have a problem with Veterans. I understand it only states the movie Blood Done Sign My Name was filmed in Shelby. But that’s promoting the film. It’s giving recognition and credit to the authors’ work.

Tyson claims to be an Historian and a research scholar, Historians don’t make those kinds of mistakes. You don’t embellish someone as being a Vietnam Veteran when they never served in Vietnam.

Would you agree the public has the right to know the author and the screenwriter are misleading the public and profiting from it at the same time?

The P.O.W. network is a reliable source, the Freedom of information Act is a reliable source. I would think if the P.O.W website states Henry Marrow never served in Vietnam and had a dishonorable discharge that is reliable and shows proof of false advertising.

go to http://www.pownetwork.org/

The Blue section, Click on Heroes or Villains Fake Warrior Project.

at the top of The Epidemic of Military Imposters page click on names.

On The Fake Warrior page, The Every other possible Military Claim section chick on M1 and scroll to Henry Marrow.

In my opinion anywhere Timothy Tyson or Jeb Stuart are advertising Blood Done Sign My Name the public has a right to know they are lying about someone’s military status.

My post should be allowed anywhere. Nonconnah77 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it is your opinion. If you can prove that there has been coverage in reliable source media somewhere, you might have an argument. However, Wikipedia is not the place to promote opinions or push agendas, which the POW Network states that it is part of the effort to seek out and criticize. See http://www.fakewarriors.org/ . Your posting of info on the Blood Done Sign My Name article and the Timothy Tyson pages might be relevant, if consensus deems the sources you provide to be reliable. Putting little jabs at Tyson over every page in which his name or the book/movie name is mentioned is absolutely soapboxing/spamming/agenda pushing. It is unnecessary and nothing more than pushing your opinion. One of the reasons I got started with reverting some of your edits was that you appeared to be beginning to edit war. Per WP:BRD, if someone reverts your edits, you should then take it to the article's talk page and discuss it there. Which is what you should do now. Not here on your user talk page. On that talk page, explain the reasons why you think it should be included and then just wait for discussions to take place. It could take a while, so be patient. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please check out WP:NEUTRAL for help with wording the info you want put in. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Done Sign My Name

Hi. I'm afraid I had to revert some of your changes to Murder of Henry Marrow, Timothy Tyson and Blood Done Sign My Name. Unfortunately, and I'm aware of the irony given what you are trying to point out, Wikipedia can't accept self published websites as sources for potentially controversial information. This is difficult, as you may well be correct, but unfortunatly Wikipedia has to be focused on repeating the content of verifiable reliable sources, rather than original research, even when that original research is well founded. If you can find the same arguments published in sources with stronger editorial control, then it would probably be fine to add it back. - Bilby (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby, Your reason to change my edits are very poor. It makes absolutely no sense for you to say the P.O. W. Network is not a reliable source. The P.O.W. Network is reliable they have access to Military records. They work with Senators’ and Congressmen to help create laws for Military Veterans in numerous ways. They state “We have students requesting help for term papers and journalists needing research documentation. We are proud and grateful to be able to respond to each and every one of those inquiries with documentation and material from our archive”. And you want to say they are not a reliable source?

The P.O.W. Network is showing a picture of the DVD of Blood Done falsely advertising a Vietnam Veteran, and various media coverage is also falsely reporting a Vietnam Veteran. The P.O.W. site is showing a copy of Henry Marrow’s military status obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act. showing this person never served in Vietnam, and the public has a right to know. So what do mean Wikipedia can not accept self- published websites as sources? I don’t own the P.O.W. Network site. And what do you mean by controversial information? Bilby, what’s so hard for you to understand Henry never served in Vietnam that’s not controversial. I’m simply trying to let the public know someone is lying about Henry Marrow’s military status. I’m going to leave you with this thought, search James Frey on Wikipedia and check out the various websites and links. Do we have double standards here? I will be reverting your edits. Nonconnah77 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nonconnah77. Let's assume you're absolutely right. Your edits on this topic still aren't going to be acceptable. Wikipedia is (to a first approximation) a handy collection of summaries of reliable, secondary sources. When the information you want to contribute shows up in a reliable secondary source we'll be happy to take it. Until then, it doesn't belong here. As to double standards, James Frey's fabrications were discussed at length in reliable secondary sources. Had someone tried to update his article with that information before the story broke in the mainstream press they would have had their edits reverted just like your edits are getting reverted. You're asking for a double standard and I don't see any hope of you being granted one. (See WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS for the grotty details.)

I'll leave you with one last thought:

If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing. WP:FLAT

Garamond Lethe 17:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV editing notice

Taking a look at your editing, virtually all of the edits I have seen are pushing a POV (point of view). This is counter to what we are here for. If your only goal to being at Wikipedia is to insure certain data is inserted into articles, then you are here for the wrong reasons. If you want to add neutral and properly sourced information, then it looks like several people have tried to help you, however, if the POV pushing continues, you will likely be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]