User talk:Kettenhunde

Welcome
Hello, Kettenhunde, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- PBS (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Contoversy and reality
You may thing whatever you want, you can try to prove whatever you want, and you may say whatever you want, but the facts show that in a way many of the Protocols are real. You don't need a very high IQ to notice that some of the Protocols make sense, they became reality, the book can be considered a prophetic manuscript inspired by “doesn't matter who!”, anyway for the best o for the worse, many of them are reality today. At some point the book makes more sense than the Bible. --Kettenhunde (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The above belongs here (so I pasted it here for you.). --Ludvikus (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As i found out my comments are not very well welcome, even when the proof is everywhere, that is why one of the main points of the Protocols is "Control of the Media", in that way people can be indoctrinated. Wikipedia encourages people to be BOLD and then when you make a comment someone comes around delete your post and try to make you thing that you are wrong, remember "truth as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder", and tired of people and books trying to tell me what is was and what it is. At the same time is sad to see that different points of view are seen as a treat to the harmonious concept of "we are right, we own it".--Kettenhunde (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How come you cannot accept the fact that Wikipedia is not the place to express your personal beliefs? --Ludvikus (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Kettenhunde it is best not to start a line with a space as the software will not format such lines and it makes it difficult to read. If you start a line with a letter or number the software will automatically format it and wrap it to fit the width of the reader's browser. -- PBS (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Kettenhunde, if you make edits to articles to bring in new facts, it is a really good idea to add a citation to show where it comes from. For example, if your facts come from an article entitled "This time will never be different" in the 28 September 2009 edition of the Financial Times newspaper, then you mark the citation as follows:. I find with controversial material that it is often better to quote sentences from the original. If you put these in quotation marks, and add the reference as a citation it is much harder for people to mess you about.

If you want to quote several different sentences or parts of sentences from an article, then there is a way of making the same reference do the work: The second time you make the reference, you just have to add:

Most of the people you deal with in Wikipedia are good well-meaning people. Unfortunately there are a few bullies and dubious people. If you have problems with such people, ask someone nice like User:Philip Baird Shearer for advice. Philip is an administrator.

One of Wikipedia policies is to Assume good faith, so try not to accuse people of bad motives. I have found that some people that I was sure were acting in bad faith, actually were not. I had misjudged them.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't accuse anyone of anything (I'm not a child), and I don't think that people does anything based on bad motives but personal interest. If I made a mistake in the way I try to publish my comment I apologize, but that doesn't mean that my article is wrong, it's not my intention to demostrate the veracity of the Protocols, but, it seems very interesting that even if the book is a hoax some of the parts of theses conspiracy theory have become reality.--Kettenhunde (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sign your postings
This is all you need to do: --~
 * Please return to my Talk page and sign your comment. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum
Do you understand the above? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * With reference to your posting to my talk page. I posted one of the general welcome sections to your talk page to give you easy access to some of our content policies and guidelines. You might like to read WP:talk page, (yet another guideline!) the first section is called "important notes" and the very first bullet point explains further what Ludvikus wrote. So please do not use the article talk pages to present your views on a topic. Instead use them to suggest ways that the article can be improved.


 * You wrote on my talk page "What do I need to do to get my posting reinstated?, do I need to list the names of the owners of the major media networks, or the name of the people that owns Hollywood?, what do I need to make my point stand?." No you should not list the names of the owners of the major media networks, that would be original research, and just another why of stating you opinion. What you need to do is find a reliable source that holds the same opinion as you, and is relevant to the further development of the specific article to which you wish to contribute. Note that the bar for what is a reliable source is quite high and for example can not be a self published source including but not restricted to websites. -- PBS (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)