User talk:Aedwardmoch

Please don't attach your name to edits in main space
Please don't credit yourself in the body of articles as a "researcher" as you did at Jules Moch and Col. Jules Moch. Movingboxes (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of A. Edward Moch
A tag has been placed on A. Edward Moch requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. triwbe (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to No original research, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedians with articles.)  triwbe (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of A. Edward Moch
A tag has been placed on A. Edward Moch requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. triwbe (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. triwbe (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Rufus Osborne Mason"
A page you created, Rufus Osborne Mason, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it has no content, other than external links, categories, "see also" sections, rephrasing of the title, and/or chat-like comments.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. StaticGull Talk  16:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A. Edward Moch
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article A. Edward Moch, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of A. Edward Moch
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Cunard (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Cunard (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Cunard (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
As you are attempting to create articles about yourself and close associates. You should read our policy on conflict of interest and autobiographies if you have not done so already. They can be found at WP:COI and WP:AUTO. You should also take a look at our FAQs on this matter at WP:BFAQ and WP:ASFAQ. Let me know if you have any questions or need help with anything. --Leivick (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See also WP:COIN. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I would respond to your post on the now deleted talk page. AS the creator of an article, you are responsible for asserting notability in accordance with WP:N.  The article was deleted because it did not assert or show much in this regard.  In order to be kept, it must be shown that the subject of the article received significant non trivial coverage in reliable sources.  I will again discourage you from writing your own biography or that of relatives.  As it is very difficult to for the subject of an article to recognize non neutral language and what should be a dispassionate debate, will very likely turn into a personal one. --Leivick (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Rufus Osgood Mason has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bblogspot\.com' (link(s): http://publicparapsychology.blogspot.com/2007/09/50th-annual-pa-convention-forgotton.html). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rufus Osgood Mason
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Rufus Osgood Mason, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider the deletion of article, as I am adding cleaning and providing additional information, as there is enough recognition from other sources that support his importance and noterity in the various fields of involvement. Please Engine search "Rufus Osgood Mason" as one of "The Forgotton Pioneers of Parapsychology", Aedwardmoch (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the message. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. PROD is only for non-contested deletions. But please do explain in the edit summary why you remove it (ie. repeat the above message in a shorter form). How is that for POV ? --triwbe (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tankyou for allowing me to edit, improve and adjust this article... please continue to suggest additional improvements and editing additions. Aedwardmoch (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)A Edward MochAedwardmoch (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Norman Cota has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. 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. Thanks. sephiroth bcr ( converse ) 03:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Merriwether Lewis Clark,Sr.
A tag has been placed on Merriwether Lewis Clark,Sr. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. triwbe (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Meriwether Lewis Clark, Sr.
Hi. I've moved this article (changed its title) because you had spelled his name wrong - there is only one R in Meriwether. I've changed the references in other articles so that the links work right. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello... I was still editing the article it as you moved it??

Aedwardmoch (talk)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's at Meriwether Lewis Clark, Sr. - just click on the title of my earlier note. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * References - a point I should have mentioned before is that this article needs a reference or references to the source of the information. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable from reliable sources. WP:CITE gives advice on how to set out a citation. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge Old Fordham Village into Fordham articles?
Have you considered moving the germane material from Old Fordham Village into Fordham. I think there really should only be one article, with Old Fordham Village as a section of Fordham. If you agree, there is a procedure for WP:Merge which you should check first, altho I don't think there would be any issues with this. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If the article "Old Fordham Village" can be merged successfully into the "Fordham" article... I have no objections. Aedwardmoch (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to pass the buck, but I don't have the time to do it, so you'd have to.Bellagio99 (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I never done a merge before... since I'm still new to Wiki? I guess I will try? Aedwardmoch (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I did one part: I just copied the Old Fordham Village article into the Fordham article. You can proofread me, but it's done. All you need to do is to propose the Old Fordham Village article for speedy deletion.

Two polite cautions: (a) there are no citations for the entire section, and that violates WP policy. It would be great if you added them in, before someone (else) deletes the whole article as violating WP:V and WP:OR. (b) And you should be sure that you didn't copy the article from somewhere else -- I cut stuff such as "sport of kings" because it just sounded like it wasn't written for an encyclopedia. Good luck. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Schwartz
Message for you at talk page remote viewing. Thanks Kazuba (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

armory
Hi I removed you edits to Eighth Regiment Armory (Bronx) until it is sourced. Please add one and then re-add it, thanks--CPacker (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a former member of The Bronx County Historical Society, and living just a few blocks away from The Armory, I had seen the original "Bromley Real Estate Maps" of Bronx County at The BCHS Research Library back in the 1970's, showing the boundries of the "Bathgate Estate" with The Mansion still showing about 1900, and earlier maps of the original Old Bathgate Estate, that was purchaced by Leonard Jerome and Assoc. for the building of Jerome Park Racetrack.

http://www.lehman.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/publicart/neighborhood.htm

Aedwardmoch (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi agian, I looked through the link above and didnt see anything to prove this part on the armory page "Originally built on the site of where the former "Old Bathgate Mansion" once stood, on what was part of The Old Bathgate Estate formerly purchaced by sport and stock speculator, Leonard W. Jerome and Associates for the building of Jerome Park Racetrack". I removed it again on the grounds of Citing sources. If you can find a source to back up your information please re-add it, thanks --CPacker (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Verification
Please read Reliable sources and Verifiability. There is no point in posting unsupported celebrity anecdotes to the Talk pages of articles such as Fordham, Bronx, Walt Disney and Fordham University; the material won't be used unless supported by reliable third-party published sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please refer to the book "The Art of Walt Disney", Published 1973, by Harry N. Abrams, Inc. It is published that Walt Disney was in Fordham, and visted the "Raoul Barre Art Studios", that was a few blocks North of The Edison Studios, from which he used at the height of his animation experience.
 * Aedwardmoch (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I profess that I am not perfect...are you? Let the published book speak for itself.

Aedwardmoch (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So what does it actually say? That "Walt Disney was in Fordham, and visited the Raoul Barre Art Studios" is a very different statement from the anecdote about Barré being surprised when half his students and staff decamped. The important thing is that you cite, reporting accurately what the sources say. This applies to all the material you've posted. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will partly concede at this time about Disney, because the story I was told was that Disney did visit Fordham as was told to me by a reliable source, but the published book "The Art of Walt Disney", does present more on Barre's Studio in Fordham. In Part 1, Early Enterpizes, Pg. 24-25 "At that time the industry was centered in New York City. One of several studios was that of Raoul Barre... Dick Huemer, later a Disney animator and story man was in 1916 a student at The Art Students League and living in The Bronx, where The Barre Studios was located. He recalls seeing Barre's business sign on the door hanging on the door at the corner of Fordham Road and Webster Avenue." According to Huemer, "I had done alot of illustrating, in yearsbooks and things like that. One day, out of curiosity, I just walked upstairs, and there was this plump little guy sitting there-a very genial character with a French accent. I told him I'd seen his sign and would like to work as a cartoonist. He said, 'All right-go into the next room, they'll put you to work.' And that's how I got into the business." It is a fact that Fordham was a center for early silent film and cartoon animation. At it's height, the Fordham area had numerious theatres and movie houses. A few blocks North of Barre's Studio, was The Edison Studios, which was on the corner of Decatur Avenue and Oliver Place. The back end of The Edison Studios faced Webster Avenue. Nearby, South of Fordham Road, there was also The Biograph Studios.

Aedwardmoch (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fordham-Bedford, Bronx
Please do not add unsourced material. The importance of source citation has been repeatedly explained to you. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess my knowledge of the area challenges "the Bias negative" direction of the article that you support, in spite the fact that you diss the fact that I grew up in the area, and probably know more about Fordham, Fordham-Bedford in question. Very well... I open the challenge that this article be reviewed by "Wiki", and this article be properly re-written.

Aedwardmoch (talk)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no views about negative/postive bias, only that you don't add stuff that isn't properly cited, since your unsupported personal knowledge comes under original research. But personal knowledge is fine if you can provide reliable citations. I agree that the article needs review, as a lot of what's already there isn't sourced either. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Name was changed
Stuart Blue Harary changed his name to Keith Harary in 1982. http://www.answers.com/topic/keith-harary Kazuba (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Some Wiki Articles Not Dealing with Reality
I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to be source of accurate information. After my attempt to create, edit and correct numerious articles that were vague and questionable to reality... I am finding a small bunch of Wiki-administration that don't know their *** from their elbow. Sorry to be so acute but I have my professional knowledge of accurate information challanged most if not all the time... WHY? I'll tell you why, because some of the admin-checkers are bias to reality, and seem to accept articles that have been loaded with mis-information and larger than life consepts. Don't get me wrong... there are some Wili articles that are excellant, but not enough... especally to what are limited in scope of knowledge. I not here to challange WIKI, but to contibute accurate information on article that I know are in-correct or need fixing. Let me do what I need to do, and stop challenaging me on topics that I have "First Handed Knowlede and awareness". In respect to those that do write excellant articles here at WIKI, I give you my positive support, to the others, please re-examine your articles better or resign your positions as they hamper the real goal of WIKI as an accurate source.Aedwardmoch (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like it's time to create another A. Edward Moch article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magmagoblin2 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Stargate Project
I have once again removed your recent edits to the Stargate Project article as the content did not meet Wikipedia's requirements of notability and verifiability. Please do not return the content to the article. Lame Name (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not add content to my User page. Feel free to leave a comment on my Talk page or just continue the discussion here for completeness.  Please read the requirements for notability and verifiability as linked above.  These requirements should be established by reference to reliable sources.Lame Name (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. Unless you can verify your involvement with the Stargate Project using proper reliable sources, please don't add it. You've also been warned many times about your COI in adding autobiographical material to Wikipedia. Fences &amp;  Windows  01:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

To Whom It May... I do posess documentation and support that "A. Edward Moch" played a part in what is known as "Project Stargate" and other related material under the auspices of "Remote Viewing" that has been incorporateed into the main article. I ask "Wiki" to cease and decest under the scope of posting courtesy... if refused again, to post... will be forced to present such information and documents to legal council, pending possible actionAedwardmoch (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see No legal threats AndroidCat (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is here. Thank you. Fences &amp;  Windows  03:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You MUST retract and recant your legal threat, or you will be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
Please "Unblock" and I will withdraw "Possible Legal Action", and give "Courtesy of Resolution" to you and "Wiki". As I have documentation and signed letters or Affidavit(s) that should meet with mutual approvalAedwardmoch (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're still making legal threats. I cannot unblock you until you redact your legal threat per WP:NLT.  Continue making legal threats and I'm afraid I will have to revoke your talk page access.  -  F ASTILY   (T ALK )

My reputation speaks for itself... I am seeking "Courtesy of Resolution" so to withdraw "Possible Legal Action or Threat", again, I can assure you that my information on "A. Edward Moch" is legit and contributes greatly to the present article and is not false or fraudulent. I am open to resolve this conflict.Aedwardmoch (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no negotation when you make legal threats. You must unconditionally recant anything resembling a legal threat or you will remain blocked. File a proper unblock request and state that you unconditionally withdraw any legal threats. No "if only" stuff, no self-puffery about your alleged authority in the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no negotation when it comes to repressing "Freedom Of Information" 1st. Amendment issue material. Most if not all this article is based on FOI published material. In my opinion, all your doing is damaging WIKI's Reputation as a source for reliable facts and information. I know you are trying to protect the integurity of WIKI, but what are you protecting? I am duly aware of how Wiki's is losing clientelle and users. TOOO Many rules, twists turns. The longer I remain blocked... the longer the words gonna go out, not by me but by you own hand. You show no "Courtesy of Resolution" at this time. It's your move to respect the basic tennants of WIKI or continue to hide behind the blosted rules and regulations, OK?Aedwardmoch (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Freedom of speech" is an irrelevant argument, as there is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a wiki open to all to edit, but that doesn't mean that all content that editors wish to add will be retained. Consensus among editors is to not include the content you wish to add. One of the central principles of Wikipedia is verifiability. Primary sources such as letters and affidavits are generally not acceptable sources - Wikipedia is based on independent secondary sources, such as news articles, books scholarly articles etc. Sources should be reliable, i.e. have a reputation for fact checking. To write a biography, you can try Wikipopuli or Biographicon. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have legal concerns, you may contact Wikimedia foundation's legal counsel . That is the only thing we can do for you while you refuse to withdraw your legal threats. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)unconditionally

Thank you for the additional information of other biography web sites. The issue is the removal of "A. Edward Moch" from the article of "Project Stargate". I have a FOIA/1st. Amendment letter from "The Central Intelligence Agency" dated Oct. 27th. 1999 to "A. Edward Moch" in regards to "Project Stargate". In the said letter, The CIA accepted material documents from A. Edward Moch. One of these documents is a newpaper article interview by Nancy Love of The Foothill Leader dated Aug. 15, 1987. Some of the contents of this newspaper article is present and accepted in the "WIKI" Stargate article. In this FOIA/1st. Amendment letter, the CIA recognizes A. Edward Moch as a direct and/or in-direct participant of "Project Stargate". The removal of "A. Edward Moch" from said "WIKI" article is bias to his reputation as a participate of "Project Stargate", and should be re-incerted. As you may know, "Project Stargate" was declassified in September 1995. The recognized newspaper article interview goes back to 1987, approximately eight years before stargate was declassified.I profess to be no lawyer, but I do have connections to the media. I had an ancestor-cousin named James Alexander, who represented a person named John Peter Zenger over a famous publishing issue.I am open to a mutual solution of this issue.Aedwardmoch (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is your last warning. Either recant any and all legal threats and stop posting this nonsense to this page, or your ability to edit this page will be removed. TN X Man  20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Does "WIKI" intend to restore "A. Edward Moch" back into the "Project Stargate" article? If so... then I will gladly withdraw my "Possible Legal Action".Aedwardmoch (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC) You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Navboxes on author pages
Since you have over 25 edits at Talk:Edgar Allan Poe, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This user is BLOCKED. ^ Look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.27.4 (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)