User talk:100.1.235.23

February 2020
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL). While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL), you may be blocked from editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

REPLY: I sourced the information about Eddie Gallagher from the US Department of Defense / US Department of Justice CASE online in PACER.GOV and from the US Defense Department Information Agency and from my own employers. The only reason it appeared disruptive is due to the PARTISAN NATURE and FALSE NARRAATIVE of comments already on the Item. It bore completely false allegations regarding Mr. Gallegher's actual actions, the confession of the other Seal and proven circumstances of his exoneration, and the behavior of Navy Seal Admiral and the US Secretary of the Navy resulting in both individuals loss of job. I would caution Wikipedia's editors from continuing to foster such false information and opposition to its correction. I work for the US Department of Defense in a special area that observes and take steps to correct false information about the Defense Department and only corrected the false information you published apparently authored bv politically partisan sources, yielding anger in your above warnings. You should research such stories WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE and the NAVY DEPARTMENT BEFORE YOU PUBLISH THEM, and that goes for your editors. That there are more of you than there are of me on Wikipedia suggests OPPRESSION OF THE TRUTH and I'd have to take your above comments as somewhat intimidating to the average editor. I respectfully request you reassess you interpretation of Mr. Gallagher's case outcome and did some research on why he was photographed near the terrorist's "corpse" callously, at the time. The facts don't stand up to your editors' claims, unfortunately: he had nothing to do with the killing and while he may have lacked judgment in agreeing to pose for his comrade's picture taking, after that he was set up, and simply should have received a verbal warning, not a persecution by prosecution for murder, so as to make him a scapegoat by superiors looking to hide from possible wrongdoing, which it turns out there was none on his part short of agreeing to be photographed. One does not vourt martial and charge with murder someone photographed near a victim. That is bad judgment on SecNav's part and since I was involved in the prosecution investigation, I believe your article originally wronged Gallagher by IMPLYING he was the killer and sadistic. Please consider that before proceeding further. You are beginning to behave like partisan censorship in this one case. And be ware of the Political Parties editing Wikipedia Items for Partisan Gain and then LOCKING THEM so that the facts can not be corrected to allow for factual analysis and correction, since so much of what has been edited in has been done so to Wikipedia against its terms by inclusion of FALSE NARRATIVE and PARTISAN NONSENSE as in this case. Stay well and try and keep it on the straight and narrow path. BTW, Don't accuse me of things I am not doing. I do have the authority to engage in legal steps to protect myself from continued threatening by Wikipedia and said "Gorilla Warfare", whoever is behind that, who apparently is a PARTISAN EDITING person with ties to one party but not the other. As a learned Encyclopedia, Wikipedia must NEVER be used for partisan false news. The outcome in the Gallagher case goes factually oppositional to the false information the origin of the story decided to pen an a journalistic foray into PARTY POLITICS by including innuendo and implication that was clearly authored in the Democrat channel in an effort to smear the Republican channel of politics. I'm not so concerned about which channel but that you don't in the course of it LIBEL THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, THE NAVY SEALS and US NAVY and the reputation of an innocent Seal. In that event, though you don't intend it, You join LINKED IN in that manner which I am absolutely certain Wikipedia's creators never intended to. In fact I found the exact wording of the original editor's content IN A STORY INTENDED TO CONDEMN EDDIE GALAGHER on LINKED IN and believe its author, a noted Democrat Political Opinion Maker who has stated HATRED for the Military, Trump and the US Government, was fundamentally misstating the events that actually happened adding spin to his pen to condemn Gallagher even though exonerated. Stay well. I realize you are, it appears, journalists and not Encyclopediists. But take care not to harm the history of fact by allowing politicians to use your Pedia. When you do, all you do is deplete the size of your user base.

And remember, you must maintain A NEUTRAL FORUM to be granted EXEMPTION FROM CIVIL DAMAGES LIABILITY for the content posted to WIKIPEDIA by third parties. If you stray from that course, and bias in the direction of one political side, as it appears you have here and elsewhere, you run the risk of running aground of monetary damages lawsuits. I'd like not to see that happen to you since long ago I decided Wikipedia a good idea. Please don't disappoint further.

Stay in good health...