User talk:Legendary Status

October 2020
Hello, I'm Transcendental36. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Itaewon murder case, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page.   Transcendental36 (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I apologize for that. I realized it just a little bit ago, but you beat me to it. Anyway, I'll send you some links to confirm what can be confirmed. Of course, you should realize that I only changed the conspiracy section, which shouldnt require any citations because it is simply a conspiracy theory. I do have firsthand knowledge of the case because I know Arthur Patterson. I also know the Korean justice system (if you can call it that). I know just how corrupt the system is because I was a chemistry teacher in the Yongsan district before a drunk Korean man with a malfunctioning pancreas attacked my group and me with a weapon, during which he hit himself in the head. Later, after a long list of medical negligence, the Korean man died, and even though I had already been cleared of the assault charge by the prosecutors according to the original witness statements, after the guy died in the ICU ten days later, the prosecutors were changed, and I was charged with an assault that led to death by way of the changed statements of the prosecutor's witnesses. This is fact according to the case file and court records, but according to Korean constitutional law, a judge is allowed to decide according to his conscience. Thus, because the family was wealthy, and because Im simply a lowly foreigner according to the Korean social hierarchy, I was knowingly imprisoned falsely for the Korean equivalent of manslaughter with absolutely zero proof of guilt other than perjured statements, distorted and forged evidence, and the purposeful denial of evidence of innocence being admitted as evidence in my defense.


 * What I wrote on the Itaewon Murder Wikipedia page is not from a vendetta. It is purely to show the Itaewon Murder case for what it was - a farce. There is no agenda behind this other than to make sure that people arent biased by the LACK of FACTS of the case as it stands. For the record, in Korea, facts are determined by a judge's decision instead of a judge's decision being determined by facts. That is Korean justice (according to the essence of the Korean constitutional law). Here is that law: http://law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%EB%AF%BC%EA%B5%AD%ED%97%8C%EB%B2%95/%EC%A0%9C103%EC%A1%B0


 * Here is the citation for the mother's compensation claim: https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20190213007100315


 * The difficulty in acquiring case files so that they can be used as references is that the prosecutors tend to deny the request because they dont want the corruption to be made known. My request was denied twice. Of course, that doesnt matter because I already had the case file, and I intend to expose the corruption to the world, something that most innocent people in Korean prisons, which includes Korean citizens, are often unable to do. Of course, that technically still doesnt matter because of the Korean constitutional law that I gave you above.


 * Thus, Ill leave it up to you to decide whether you will allow my details of the controversy to be admitted to the page. If you dont want them there, then delete them as I the Korean legal system is corrupt and the Korean media is controlled and sometimes censored outright. Im sorry to have wasted your time. Have a great day/life.
 * Hello, thanks for giving an update on your reasoning for contributing. First of all, conspiracy sections should most definitely be cited by reliable source. There are few cases where citing is not necessary, as you can read up on at the Wikipedia:Citing Sources page. In addition, Wikipedia holds a strong policy against Original Research. While you may claim that you know Arthur Patterson, we have no way to verify it. I understand why you feel the contribution is important and I believe that you made it in good faith. The content has been reverted, but you are more than welcome to add this content back to the page once you've gathered enough non-primary sources following our reference guidelines. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me at my talk page or asking at the Tea House. Cheers, Transcendental36 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)