User talk:Jhudin

 Hello, Jhudin, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
 * The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Jhudin, good luck, and have fun. Hoary (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

John Searle and the facts
Most likely with the best of intentions, you added unsourced material to the article on the living person John Searle. More problematically, this was material about a contentious issue.

Wikipedia can't accept this. Such material needs reliable, published sources. David Eppstein was right to remove it.

As your username suggests that you may be connected, the best thing for you to do would be to post to Talk:John Searle the material that you believe should be added -- together with these reliable, published sources, of course -- and wait for somebody who's not connected to evaluate it and, if it's judged appropriate, to add it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

hoary
Dear Hoary, In response to your comment on my talk page, I guess this is where I answer. I am indeed the person mentioned in this article and the content stated is libelous. It needs to be corrected or amended. I tried to cite resources---very happy to---but couldn't. Again, this site must be amended. Jhudin (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)jhudin


 * Thank you for replying quickly. If you believe that the article is libelous, please see Libel. But in order to make your charge stick, you should cite sources.


 * You say that you can't cite sources. Is this because you can't find them, or because you don't understand the technical procedure needed to add a reference to an assertion? If the latter, see Help:Referencing for beginners or of course examine references that are already inserted and working. -- Hoary (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Hoary, As I stated in my email, I tried to state resources but couldn't. That does not mean I was unable because I didn't have them, it means I had them but I was blocked by your technology. So, yes, thank you, I will try to insert them. I not only believe this is libelous, I know it is. My two year trial ended in finding that I was entirely innocent of all allegations made by Ong. Unfortunately, I will never have my reputation back because of sources like Wikipedia which all too happily published a bunch of falsehoods. I will try to emend the libelous statements---they must be done properly and add references. Your inserted references are insufficient. Jhudin (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)jhudin


 * Sorry, I wrote my previous message well after my bedtime and after my brain had already started to shut down for the night. If you were going to add sources to claims in an article, you'd be well advised to see Help:Referencing for beginners; however, you're instead going to write either on the article's "talk page" (also called "discussion page") or in email, and in neither do you have to do anything even slightly advanced. Just type out the reference as you would if doing so for any other purpose.


 * If you're writing in a talk page and you want to provide a link, then a bit of formatting would be helpful. In order to achieve the link within


 * Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying." The Guardian, 27 October 2005.


 * you need the sequence
 * https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2005/oct/27/news.rupertmurdoch
 * space
 * Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying
 * ]
 * ]


 * Again, please don't try to emend what you believe is libelous: such an effort isn't likely to succeed. Instead, I suggest that you write on Talk:John Searle. Here's how. Go to whatever is the lowermost section of that page (currently, it's Talk:John_Searle), click the link saying "edit" next to the title of this section, move to the bottom of the editing window, write "== Libelous material ==" (without the quotation marks, and without any spaces for indentation; and of course with any title that you wish ["Libelous material" is merely a suggestion]), move on to a new line, and describe what's wrong, presenting sources. Use the option "Show preview" to see if it looks OK before you hit "Publish changes". (Tip: An attempt to indent a new line by adding spaces not only doesn't work, it screws things up.)


 * Harried, fallible, but well-intentioned and basically fair editors of Wikipedia will almost certainly notice what you write and will act on it.


 * If they (we) seem either not to notice or to notice but react unfairly/lazily (or if the reaction to your complaint is unsatisfactory in any other way), then please use the email link that you'll find within Libel.


 * I understand that this rigmarole may be annoying and seem unfair, but I hope that you'll post your objections in a way that's most likely for them to be, and to remain, effective. -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Hoary,

I have tried to figure out how to accommodate your suggestions, but going to the end of the talk page on Derrida does not address the libelous statements in the sexual harassment section of the John Searle article. I cannot understand why it would.

I do not know who wrote this sexual harassment section, but it is completely false. Searle's case is still in the courts. But my case was decided in court and I was dubbed ``the ultimate victim'' of this Ong case. Your Wikipedia article has done more damage than you could imagine to me and to Searle. The statement that I told Ong about Searle having sexual relationships and paying girls off... is entirely false and was intended by Ong to destroy my reputation (it did). The Office of Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD) (Title IX) under the old Obama ``Dear Colleague'' rules, found me completely innocent of all of Ong's allegations in virtue of material evidence. Which means, there was no question at all about the truth of this statement. This is stated in an official University of California,Berkeley, verdict dated November 3, 2017. I do not know what to do with this but I do not see why the burden is on me, an innocent person, to fix this.

Further, it was also determined that Ong was never employed by me or Searle so she could not be hired or fired nor her salary reduced. Again, this is stated in my document from the OPHD dated November 3, 2017.

This sexual harassment section in Wikipedia is outrageous and libelous. It has been referenced and used against my present employment, Searle's employment and worldwide lectures, demonstrating personal harm. I suggest you ask David Epstein what to do next because I do not know how to handle editing Wikipedia. Editing has to be done.  added by Jhudin at 21:24, 22 May 2019 


 * I wrote above: "An attempt to indent a new line by adding spaces not only doesn't work, it screws things up." I've had to reformat your comment above merely in order to read it.


 * Above, I suggested that you do either of two things. First (and preferably):


 * Go to whatever is the lowermost section of [the "talk page" of the article John Searle] (currently, it's Talk:John_Searle), click the link saying "edit" next to the title of this section, move to the bottom of the editing window, write "== Libelous material ==" (without the quotation marks, and without any spaces for indentation; and of course with any title that you wish ["Libelous material" is merely a suggestion]), move on to a new line, and describe what's wrong, presenting sources.


 * Alternatively (and preferably after that attempt on the talk page fails): "please use the email link that you'll find within Libel".


 * You haven't done the former. I don't know whether you have done the latter, but as you don't mention that you've done it, I suspect that you haven't.


 * Please do either the one or the other. (I understand that you might not want to do the former as it would make your name more conspicuous. Fair enough: skip it, and do the latter.)


 * If you do either but nothing satisfactory results from this, then alert me to this on my own user talk page, and I'll see if I can do something. -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Please just post what you want to say on the article's talkpage
Jhudin, I sympathise very much with your bafflement at our codes and technicalities here. Could you please just post what you want to say at Talk:John Searle (preferably at the foot of the page, but if you can't find the foot, never mind, post anywhere and we'll find it), and somebody will format it for you and tell you what, if anything, you need to do next. Include the sources you want to refer to in any form you like. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC).

Also, if you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team at info-en-q@wikipedia.org. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC).