User talk:Billwatkinsword

March 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Citizens Commission of Inquiry has been reverted. Your edit here to Citizens Commission of Inquiry was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbTE0DJ4PPw) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. 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. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. 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) 23:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to Lee Harvey Oswald
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Lee Harvey Oswald, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Lee Harvey Oswald. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning about edit warring
Your recent editing history at Lee Harvey Oswald shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Go easy, man-- you sound like this is everyday for me... Facts and sources should trump #'s of editors, but if Wikipedia likes its popularity contest, someone needs to make a site reflecting truth--not the army of trolls that can be recruited to assure a convenient edit to their cause. Even if that recruiter is the U.S. Government!!
 * I do not work for the U.S. government and instead volunteer for Wikipedia. I make my money doing things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the U.S. government or Lee Harvey Oswald. Your "facts" and "sources" need to be thoroughly vetted, and if they are not of the highest quality, we will subject them to the criticism they deserve. This is a "no conspiracy theory" zone. That is not negotiable. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC) I cited 3 respected sources to PROVE not a theory, but the FACT that the 5 government "investigations" are in FACT highly disputed. I did not go for a big, radical change, but one that reflected truth. The intro of the Lee H. Oswald Wikipedia page is pro-government, official view. Something that a majority of Americans do not believe, according to Gallup and Washington Post polls in 2013. That is what is called "highly-disputed..." hence the edit with those words, that I made.

April 2015
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 Lee Harvey Oswald, you may be blocked from editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, those who disagree with your attempts to insert commentary into encyclopedia articles aren't necessarily representatives of the CIA, nor does it follow that they must be "right wing." Please stop edit-warring.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

How Wikipedia works
Wikipedia is maintained by volunteers from all over the world. In order to keep things working at all, the community has agreed to certain standards:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Verifiability is demonstrated by citing reliable sources. This does not mean just any source, but generally means professionally published, mainstream academic or journalistic sources.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * Unless you have good evidence of misbehavior, you should assume good faith from other editors. This question seems to imply that there's some sort of pan-governmental conspiracy concerned with keeping information hidden about public (i.e. government funded) transport in Australia.  That's not good faith.

If you are here to try to "prove" something, or show the world some secret "truth," please read WP:ADVOCACY and WP:THETRUTH. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

No. Just stop slandering someone with porous references.

If I make a change and cite Mark Lane, who proved to a jury that Hunt and CIA were involved in the assassination of JFK, your trolls intercept.

I don't want to win the debate tonight, nor could anyone expect to do so with so many hidden/classified documents around this.

If we can all agree even with mainstream press and reports that many facts around 11-22-63 are classified and unavailable: a wise course would be to either disable the Oswald page pending availability of government docs;

Or, for the love of the "innocent until proven guilty" concept, hold back on terms like "assassin" and "sniper."

If Wikipedia supports all government views and reports as immediate and "mainstream" fact, then I will continue to avoid you as a resource, and will continue to warn the public about your site. --Bill

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action, as you did at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions, you may be blocked from editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)