User talk:Billsbest

Welcome!
welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions or place   on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

License tagging for Image:PeaceGroupGlossary.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:PeaceGroupGlossary.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 00:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

AFSC Critism
Bill, if you wish to include the criticisms of the American Friends Service Committee in the article, please do so as part of the criticism section, and not as part of the external links. I have a person conflict of interest in editing that article so I wont make the needed adjustments, nor reflect on the validity of the sources cited (I leave that to other editors). --Ahc 03:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have done so, and greatly appreciate the considerate method you used in your counsel. I am trying to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, and just learning to navigate the site is a task in itself. (I think I'm suppozed to reply to you here, right?

Thx again,

Bill bill rummel 21:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you want to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. You will want to read the policy on verifiability. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." You have added information to articles that you have sourced to a website that does not appear to be published in the normal sense of the word. Such additions are likely to be reverted by other editors, and as the post below shows, they may be considered vandalism. I would say that the claim that the AFSC was associated with communism is an exceptional claim and would therefore need to be backed by a very good source. An example of a good source in this case would be a book written by an academic author and published by a leading university press such as the Cambridge University Press. Another example would be a report in a major newspaper such as the New York Times. I am reverting your additions to the AFSC article. If you don't agree, you can discuss it here, or on my talk page or on Talk:American Friends Service Committee. Thank you. Itsmejudith 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Judith,

Clearly, what you regard as a "criticism" is another viewpoint conflicting with what you categorize as a reliable third-party source. By that I presume you mean from the academic realm of acceptability. I'm not sure what you mean as a web site not being publsihed in the "normal sense", but can presume you mean not consistent with what you consider "truth". What was in my post that was UNFACTUAL? What do you mean by my "claim" the AFSC was associated with communism - it was! The IPS is entirely Marxist. As the AFSC is an IRS taqx-exempt organization functioning under a 501C(3) exemption, I feel that as taxpayers wse need to know just what it is our tax money is funding. "Vandalism"? That's absurd.

It is not my intention to attempt to get a focus of truth here, only point our your bias and selective judgements.

Wikipeida is not a learning site, but one adminstered by propagandists with an agenda. It's too bad. I'd expected more, and have only myself to blame.

If you're going to be the gatekeeper for the AFSC, I think you better bone-up on their history. Is the FBI consistent with your view of being a "very good source"? See what they have to say about the AFSC: http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/committe.htm

Bill
 * I'm sorry that you are attributing bias to me. I'm definitely not arguing against criticism of the AFSC appearing on the page. All notable criticisms should be there and that probably includes the FBI view although I'm not going to form an opinion on that until I have checked out the link you have provided. As a general rule websites are not regarded as reliable sources, although the websites of newspapers are, and also articles that have been through mainstream publishing and then added to the internet are also often regarded as reliable. If you're ever in doubt about whether a particular source is to be considered reliable, you can ask for guidance at the helpdesk. Generally speaking, we're a friendly and approachable community. I'd also point out that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for letting people whether public money is being spent properly, or for righting wrongs at all. I hope you stay and continue to edit. When you're a new user it is difficult to get a handle on the Neutral Point of View policy but eventually I hope you will see the logic. Itsmejudith 09:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)