User talk:Silvertiger3

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Hamilton Sundstrand has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Say Headcheese!--hexa Chord ² 21:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only Warning

Please do not make edits to Wikipedia articles such as the past several ones you have made. If you continue to make such edits your account will be blocked indefinitely. Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at United Technologies Corporation. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your DRN request

I've closed your DRN request because there had been no prior talkpage discussion about the matter in dispute, which is required by Wikipedia, but I thought I might respond to some of what you said there:

"I added the factual information on UTC's page that "Selling secret military technology to the Chinese is in fact an act of treason" with a reference to your wikipedia page defining treason. An editor, one "BilCat" reverted it. I am not sure how he did that since first of all he is "semiretired" and supposedly has not been active since 12/1/2011."

Semiretirement is more of a state of mind at Wikipedia rather than an actuality, if you look at BilCat's contribution history, he's been very active, indeed. Saying that you're simiretired or, indeed, fully retired, but then continuing to edit violates no rule of Wikipedia.
"Whoever "BilCat" was, he obviously was a puppet of UTC."
Perhaps, but probably not. Your edit did not even come close to satisfying Wikipedia requirements and because of its assertive, controversial nature, just about any Wikipedia editor who happened to see it would have been likely to remove it. First, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself, see WP:CIRCULAR. Second, a reliable source for a statement must say in so many words the information that the source is being used for. Even if the treason article could be used as a source (which it cannot, as noted above), it doesn't say anything about this company or the Chinese. What you're actually alleging is that what this company has done meets the definition of treason set out in the treason article. That kind of analysis is prohibited by the no original research policy. Third, in light of your personal dispute with this company, the conflict of interest policy says you should not be editing articles about it at all. Fourth, the what Wikipedia is not policy says that Wikipedia cannot be used as a soapbox.
"I would like to have my factual edit permently added so noone can remove it."
That's not possible, every edit on Wikipedia is subject to being edited by any editor at virtually any time. While full articles are sometimes protected from editing by editors who are not logged in, or by any editor other than an administrator, such protection is always temporary until certain problems can be worked out. Individual edits within an article cannot be protected at all.
"This is not vandalism. It is the truth."
I agree that it was a good faith edit, not vandalism. (The warning template, above, which BilCat left, includes a comment about vandalism automatically, but it does not always apply.) However, neither the fact that it was not vandalism nor the fact that it may be the truth qualifies it to be here. It must be reliably sourced as defined by Wikipedia to qualify to be here, and even then must not give undue weight.
"I will be making a donation to wikipedia."
While those of us who are regulars at Wikipedia appreciate your donation, you need to understand that such donations do not curry favor here with "the powers that be" for the simple reason that there are no "powers that be". While the Wikimedia Foundation owns Wikipedia, they leave the editing of it entirely up to anyone such as you and me who chooses to be an editor. What bureaucracy there is, administrators, the Arbitration Committee, the Mediation Committee, and a few other functions are merely here to keep order: they do not decide content. Volunteers at places like the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard are just editors like you; they have no special powers of any kind. So compliments and donation offers, while being good things in themselves, will not buy you anything, if that was your intent (and I'm not saying it was, necessarily, but just in case it was).

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you say is probably true Transporterman. Just like everything I say is true, with yes my real issues against UTC. Although unfortunately apparently no one will ever read the real truth of UTC's cruel employment practices on Wikipedia. Therefore most likely some unsuspecting young person (like me many years ago) will simply believe UTC's false propaganda and make the errant decision to enter into long term employment with them to then be screwed over like many of us have been, some of whom were right there in federal court by this defense contractor using our own tax dollars against us. Because in reality UTC is actually using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" since there are so many people like BilCat to so quickly edit the truth about UTC's sordid activities only to leave positive statements. God help those innocent young people that errantly believe they are reading unbiased information on Wikipedia and make major life decisions like where they chose to work. Perhaps you should read the truth about UTC's activities on my website utc-suicde.com/. Then maybe you will suggest that UTC be completely removed from Wikipedia.