User talk:Loyalty.Ltd

November 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Capricorn One has been reverted. Your edit here to Capricorn One 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://imgur.com/a/wwga66p) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. 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) 02:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Capricorn One, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Uhai (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I am the reliable source. I am recounting actual events, recounting  correspondence verbatim, and you have curtailed my efforts to link externally to original imagery of the source material.  All I did was recount these letters, which are THE RELIABLE SOURCE: https://imgur.com/a/wwga66p  What would you like me to do, cite myself?  I can only cite the publication of Sambrots work, and William sambrot himself. Loyalty.Ltd (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) Someone who has chosen to create a Wikipedia account is not a reliable source, as anyone can create a Wikipedia account and post anything they like.
 * 2) Wikipedia seeks to have information not on anything and everything, but only on matters which have received substantial coverage in reliable published sources. "Someone once wrote a personal letter to someone saying such and such, little or no coverage of that private correspondence appeared in published sources, and now someone has decided it should be more widely known" is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, with or without reliable sources showing that the correspondence took place. JBW (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The definition of a reliable source is a source with an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. This heavily favours mainstream news organizations, academic press, and reputable publishers of books, newspapers and magazines. Posting content that has not been previously published by a reliable source - even if you know or believe it to be true - won't be accepted. Please see the essay entitled Verifiability, not truth. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if you actually read the post, but I think the case for source material on Capricorn One being plagiarized or at least suspect is pretty clear, but thats not the claim that I'm making, or that William Sambrot was making. He was simply seeking a "Case for Comparison", and that is my same intent here - to make the public aware of the existence of the published work and compare it to the film.  I understand that in order to do that, the original short story would need to be widely available, and as it appeared in a small magazine that would be difficult, but I do have both the manuscript and the original magazine as psychical evidence in hand.  To my mind, psychical evidence is pretty reliable.  Something you can hold in your hand and read and compare to another thing is "reliable", no?  Pournelle is a reliable source.  Robert Bloch is a reliable source.  Curtis Ltd. publishing is a reliable source.  The Science Fiction Writer Association is a reliable source.  The Library of Congress  where both script and short story reside is a reliable source.  I didn't cite them, I'll give you that.  I though that the story was simply interesting enough to live  in some small corner of the internet.   To say that physical correspondence, though private, hasn't actual taken place unless that correspondence reappears as publication under a reliable source is kind of absurd.  How can first hand accounts suddenly become unreliable sources?   How can physical source material become unreliable?  Good god.  There is a point where old letters from important people become more than "So and so saying such and such", but I don't think you can understand that.
 * So again, just he same as Sambrot, I'm not trying to slander Hyams or Capricorn One. I'm trying to put the material forward for comparison.  I think the problem is that I featured this "Uncredited Source Material" too prominently for your taste.  I would make the case that this story has a place under "Other Media", but I think that you would be unrelenting in keeping this article as is, rather than allowing for some minor controversy.  In that sense, Im sorry to tell you that you, as an individual, are made of the same censorious, plagiarist stuff as the people who profited by my grandfathers original works.  Just know that I have you at a disadvantage, as all these letters and magazines and books come from the print age.  They are inarguable.  They exist.  You can shake them off your page but they'll still be around.  And who knows, maybe your name gets associated with the people who "may" have been in the wrong here, as I continue to pursue a case for comparison, and remedy.  If only your name were Drm310‬.
 * PS: speaking of citing reliable sources, what in the hell is this reference: JBW (talk) ??? There is a fly on that page.  Are you aware of what you're sending out?   Loyalty.Ltd (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I will make just one more attempt to clarify a few points, but if you still fail to grasp those points I shall spend no more time trying.
 * Editing "to make the public aware of the existence of the published work and compare it to the film" is absolutely not what Wikipedia is for. It is totally contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia to try to use it to publicise something which is not generally known but which you think should be more generally known.
 * The fact that something exists is not enough reason for it to appear in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not seek to cover everything that exists.
 * I suggest you read Righting great wrongs, where you will see that Wikipedia is not for campaigning to put right what one believes is a wrong.
 * If an editor is personally connected to someone or something then Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages them from writing about that subject. Examples are writing about oneself, one's business, a member of one's family. You can, if you wish, read the full details of that guideline, but the main point, I think, is that experience over the years indicates that editors with such a connection to a subject they are writing about are likely to find it very difficult, or even impossible, to stand back from their writing and see how it will look from the detached perspective of an outsider, so that they are likely to write in ways that do not seem neutral to others, even if they sincerely think they are writing in a neutral way.
 * You are, of course, perfectly free to continue to try to publicise what you believe has happened, and how a member of your family has been wronged, but Wikipedia is not the place to do so. Almost all of us, when we start editing Wikipedia, know little or nothing about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so nobody can be blamed for starting out doing things that are contrary to policies and guidelines that they don't know about. However, continuing to do the same things after being told about the relevant policies and guidelines is a different matter. Unfortunately, the time and effort you have put into trying to use Wikipedia to publicise your campaign will not achieve what you hoped to achieve, and if you are to put any further time and effort into the matter, you would be much better advised to do so in another venue, where the kind of thing you are trying to do is acceptable, unlike on Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)