User talk:Mavidz

I've donated to Wikipedia and I think they need to wake up and start expressing the facts as they truly are regarding UFO's. They have been PROVEN BEYOND A DOUBT to exist and the information is out there from top Military Contractors, to present and former military and intelligence personnel's testimony, to an overwhelming amount of video and radar evidence, as well as former USAF text books on the subject. Stop jerking us around about that and the fact that it's also been proven the government has been taken over illegally in a coup by private criminal banking concerns. This is no joke and it's a desperately important subject. Keep it up Wikipedia. Pretty soon the fascist state that is our government will either abolish or absorb you (most likely the later, if they haven't ALREADY done so, eh?). The truth is on the side of those who seek it. Perhaps Wikipedia isn't actually about truth. Perhaps their about blindly believing whatever is popular or their told to believe, regardless of the consequences. Well, we've already seen the consequences of their not telling the truth about the government. Hundreds of thousands dead and our Constitution in shreds, the state of political affairs a sick pathetic joke, part of the false "reality" they dictate, believed only by the truly vapid, and those unexposed to the facts. What's it going to be Wikipedia? The Fascist States of America, we already are. Whose side are you on? Or perhaps your blinders have been grafted in place.

Welcome to Wikipedia
Here is a summary of some policies and guidelines you may find useful.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.
 * Assume good faith as much as reasonably possible, and then about half-way past the border for unreasonable possibility.