User talk:Mdp0007

Mark Pagliaro 07:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Adoption
Not that you were explicitly looking for an adopter, but if you'd like I'd be willing to adopt you through my Adoption Course. The course covers everything from the basics of editing to policy to behind the scenes of Wikipedia, and in my opinion is very thorough. If you're really serious about being an editor here at Wikipedia, I'm sure that my adoption course will help you along the way. It is for the most part paced how you want it to be, as in I will post a lesson and you can respond as you feel fit. You can see more details (just don't open the collapsed box) here if you'd like to. I think that having an adopter will help you get to know Wikipedia, and get ahold of the ropes here really quickly. If you'd like to take this offer, just reply here, I will watch this page. Any questions, likewise, just ask here. Thanks, and have a great day! gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 02:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Death of Jimi Hendrix
Please take your concerns about the disputed specifics to Death of Jimi Hendrix. I'm sure there we can work out a decent compromise with all interested parties that also gives due-weight to the several equally unprovable and highly disputed theories about what happened that night. I'm curious, why does simple excess and recklessness seem so unlikley to you? Was Monika his keeper? IMO, suicide or accident are the two most likely scenarios, and murder would be the absolute least. Perhaps she did murder him, but how could we possibly source it? It's WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH at best. Anyway, lets discuss it at the appropriate article talk page and see what we come up with, but please do bring your WP:RS sources. GabeMc (talk 06:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC) There is no way to source it that I know of,as all parties that could ever tell the truth are dead.Also every thing being talked about today is he said,she said,and maybe as I said before that this is one grave that should be left alone,as no one will ever really know the truth until they get there themselves. Mark Pagliaro 15:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

James Tappy Wright
http://www.rockroadie.net/?target=rockstar_services                                                                                       Opon reveiwing all of these interveiws with James Tappy Wright, I find him to be the most appaling individual on EARTH.I believe he is a genuine LIAR and should hold no valuable credit to Wikipedia whatsoever.Mark Pagliaro 02:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, with which many others agree, Wright added the murder allegation in order to boost sales of his book. GabeMc  (talk 00:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Tappy's Picture with Jimi????
After talking with my sources that are still alive and wish to still remain anonymous.He cannot be placed in any single picture or flim documentary about or with Jimi Hendrix.I have a picture to submit that appears to be cropped by some one to show him with Jimi. I asked two parties that were close to Jimi at the time of this picture and they both are still alive and they say that what I am saying here is the truth. I wish I could name these sources, but they want to be no part of this. Jimi was a big loss to them both and they want to let him live in peace and good memories. I blame the British Authorities from 1970 for allowing this to have become a quagmire of lies. Again Monika killed Jimi out of jelousy period in my opinion from what these people have told me.They have nothing to gain from this.So here is the link to that photo you make your own decision??? http://www.rockroadie.net/?target=galleryMark Pagliaro 04:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Proof the British police did not tell the truth in 1970 and this is all they have to offer in 2012?????
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2011/january/2010110003938.pdf Mark Pagliaro 04:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Your recent edits to Talk:Jimi Hendrix could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

SCREW YOU BAN ME!!!! YOU ALL ARE LIARS THAT HAVE NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF JIMI HENDRIX AT ALL!!!!!
BAN ME!!! SUE ME ARREST ME YOU FASCISTS. Mark Pagliaro 05:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC) mdp0007 05:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relax. We're not going to sue or arrest you. However, you've indicated you will sue us, which is an unfortunate and improper communication breakdown on your part. If you don't retract the legal threat you will probably be blocked until you resolve those matters. FYI. Doc   talk  05:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

GO AHEAD !!!!
Look you started this fight AND I WILL END IT THROUGH PROPER LEGAL CHANNELS!!!05:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)mdp0007

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.  Tide  rolls  05:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have questions regarding unblock, please post them here and I will help you.  Tide  rolls  05:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I will take this to the media if I have to
Calm Down??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! I HAVE YEAR'S OF TIME AND STUDY IN THIS SUBJECT LET ALONE FRIEND'S THAT WERE CLOSE TO JIMI. YOU HAVE JUST OPENED A HUGE CAN OF WORM'SMark Pagliaro 05:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)mdp0007
 * That's not going to get you unblocked, and if you do that again I'm sure an admin would love to revoke your ability to edit this page. gwickwire  talk edits 05:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The user is going claiming to be someone with a potential WP:COI. But edits  demonstrate an issue with competence. Tough call?  Doc   talk  06:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion
Put my edit and my source back where it was and I will call a truce.If not??? Your call.Mark Pagliaro 06:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)mdp0007
 * If the edit does not meet the standards for inclusion (e.g. if it is from a non-reliable source) it will not be included. Period. I'm glad to see you're at the "bargaining table". Stop screaming in ALLCAPS to make your points: that tactic will make them virtually ignorable. Are you willing to calm down and speak like an adult about this? Doc   talk  06:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Research what happend to my post or edit
If you take the time to find out who pulled my edit first and started this mess you will find I did nothing wrong.Mark Pagliaro 06:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)mdp007

Kathleen Mary "Kathy" Etchingham my source
Are you sure she is not reputable after all she forced The British Authorities to reopen the Jimi's death investigation in the early 90's You infomaniacs tell me your take on her fact's here at this link:::http://www.rockprophecy.com/etchinghammitchell.html Mark Pagliaro 06:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)mdp0007
 * WP:FRINGE. Garbage. Doc   talk  06:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Garbage???
Prove it not to be true, have you the ability to contact her?????Mark Pagliaro 06:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)mdp0007
 * No, I do not. Nor would I need to. This has been explained to you before, I see, as I go through your contributions. Per WP:V you need to back up your claims. The website you linked to certainly does not appear to be a WP:RS. Therefore, the content from that source in not includable unless it is already published in an acceptable source. A mainstream, published book, magazine, newspaper article, reputable website, etc. would do nicely. If it isn't in one of those, it's very unlikely to be included (especially with the attention you have drawn to this). Doc   talk  06:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Why I waste my time dealing with people like you
I have asked the New Scotland Yard earlier today to release Kathy's information and her request to reopen the case in the early 90's re: Jimi's Death, You will eat your words when they send me these files next week. And again you want to resolve this but you still attempt to fuel my fire.Why?????Mark Pagliaro 07:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)mdp0007
 * Um, you came here, dude, not the other way around. You probably knew this was, like, at least the 5th most popular site on the planet: and you want your information included. Duh. If those files aren't published, we have no way of knowing they are real. "They sent them to me! I'm quoting directly from them!" doesn't cut it. Cheers, and good luck... Doc   talk  07:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Please study this in your spare time and make sure that Wikipedia is not violating any part of it. First Amendment to the United States Constitution Mark Pagliaro 07:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)mdp0007
 * It isn't in violation of the 1st Amendment. Doc   talk  07:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Read this closely
Burden of evidence"WP:PROVEIT" redirects here. For the editing tool, see User:ProveIt GT. Policy shortcuts: WP:CHALLENGE WP:BURDEN WP:PROVEIT WP:UNSOURCED The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.[2] Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. See Citing sources for details of how to do this.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material on these grounds, make it clear that you have a concern that the material itself is unverifiable. If instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

However, do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.[4]

[edit] Reliable sourcesPolicy shortcut: WP:SOURCES Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources [edit] What counts as a reliable sourceThe word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form). Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Source content related to living people or medicine especially carefully.

Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. You may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. You may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test.

[edit] Newspaper and magazine blogsPolicy shortcut: WP:NEWSBLOG Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process.[5] Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below.

[edit] Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:IRS Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult the reliable sources noticeboard, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS). In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the WP:IRS guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority.

Talk page access revoked
There is no justice at Wikipedia. We are not a court nor judges. The Foundation that owns Wikipedia is a non-profit corporation that is free to block or ban any user with or without cause or explanation. They are not a government, so Wikipedia can't violate the 1st amendment of the US Constitution. Your erratic conduct and abject lack of clue have made it clear that you need to find another hobby, since this one isn't working out. I suggest you find another website or activity to participate in. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 12:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

{{unblock | reason= my edit's were reverted or deleted by User : Doc9871 I got the information from a verifiable web site. My edit was reverted with no explanation to me whatsoever. I am new to wikipedia so at that time some of the other users that were involved at that time should have at least explained to me what I had done wrong and should have helped me fix it, but instead they choose to gang up on me. After that happened I made some statements that were wrong to do on Wikipedia because I was very upset that no one would help me with what ever I did wrong in my edit and contribution. I am sorry for the statements I made. This would have never happened if some one would have taken the time to help me, instead they choose to add more fuel on my fire. I feel that this block is unfair because of all of the above situations.Mallen2013 (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've indef blocked Mallen2013 as an obvious sock of Mdp0007. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 15:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've also removed email address from his sock for email abuse containing threats. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 18:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As can be seen in the above hatted comments, I most certainly did provide explanation to Mdp0007, based on WP:V and WP:RS, why his edits were not includable. "Rock Prophecy – Sex & Jimi Hendrix In World Religions – the Original Asteroid Prediction & Microsoft Connection" looks about as fringy as it gets, and the publisher is not a reliable or even recognized source. The following says it all: "The insights and connections in Rock Prophecy are the most important. The blacklisting of this story by media and book distributors constitutes history's most incredible and intense censorship effort ever." Give me a break. Doc   talk  22:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)