User talk:Irony Rod

October 2023
Hello, I'm ThaddeusSholto. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * May I ask whether you have watched the referenced video? If not, I strongly suggest that you do - skip part 1 and go straight to part 2. Then explain why this theory should not be included.
 * While I am not surprised by this reaction to this theory, I can assure you that all that I am promoting is the theory. No content has been added to the YouTube channel for 5 months and I have now removed everything except for the JTR videos. I don't know if you understand how YouTube monetization works, but it requires a lot and ongoing content, which is hard work. This project was principally to showcase the theory and the channel is stagnant. Even if the JTR videos got a 100 million views, without ongoing extremely popular content it could make no money, let alone anything meaningful. However, I might say that any reference to a book, website, magazine or documentary could be regarded as a promotion and really could generate money, and they all promote other associated media. Moreover, unlike any of those media, the Part 2 video presents explicit, minutely detailed evidence that can be verified by anyone, as it is all in the public domain. Whether you agree with the conclusions, is a different matter, but the evidence is irrefutable and indisputable. All JTR theories are conjecture; most are entirely conjecture and many present incorrect information (books, magazines and websites). In fact, there isn't a single book/website that doesn't contain errors, many of which my video highlights. The video also examines some of the other suspects and either adds more to those theories, or proves that the bulk of the justification behind the theory is incorrect [see Hyam Hyams]. All of which goes to prove that regardless of the nature of a publication, it can not be assumed that the information given is accurate. In contrast, the JTR videos provide all of the verifiable evidence to back every assertion.
 * Of course, there is another angle to the JTR videos, which relates to the control of the discussion-narrative by those already making lots of money from the case - i.e. they have a vested interest... Unless you're already established or a celebrity, there is little chance of a voice. Well, you would know that if you watched the video.
 * Are you happy to continue presenting incorrect information on Wikipedia? Are you interested in serving the public interest fairly and without discrimination?
 * And lastly, this is now an online world, and YouTube is a part of that. Just because you don't like or agree with something someone is saying, doesn't mean they don't the right to be heard. In this case, it's not just an opinion or unsubstantiated conjecture - quite the opposite, which is more than can be said about most theories.
 * I require a proper response about this and am not going to lie down. I will pursue this in anyway that I can. Wikipedia is supposed to be about open fact. My videos present facts. Irony Rod (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)