User talk:Mozartbeethovenbrahms



Hello, Mozartbeethovenbrahms, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
 * Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
 * Check out some of these pages:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode


 * If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, [ ask me on my talk page], or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Emad Salem into 1993 World Trade Center bombing. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 18:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Fox News
Fox News is not a reliable source for political topics. Please don't add it. Andrevan@ 03:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Fox News is not same as it was 20 years ago. Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia feels the same way though. Andrevan@ 08:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, delete every Fox News reference from wikipedia ASAP. Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the co-founder of wiki would disagree https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/internet/wikipedia-cofounder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-leftleaning-establishment/news-story/72c3c7a0c6aa3b6d86ae2c542258b28c Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Mozartbeethovenbrahms. WP:RSP is a list of common sources are how reliable the community has decided they are. Fox is considered reliable in some circumstances, but not all and the other source you added (Counterpunch) is not considered reliable at all. Also noone cares what Singer says, he hasn't been involved with the project for years. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I'm not going to revert you again, but I will say that adding a source that just reports what a unreliable source says doesn't make it reliable. It just looks like you're trying to find some run around to put particular wording in, rather than finding what reliable sources state. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbQ7ylchvlg This is video of the news report. Not sure if this video can be considered a reliable source. But again, this is written under 9/11 conspiracy theories (Which are considered generally unreliable). Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia works. You need reliable sources and verifiability for everything. Challenged material will be removed. This youtube clip doesn't cut the mustard. Andrevan@ 17:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The co-founder who is a fan of conspiracy theories, hardly a reliable source for Wikipedia. Doug Weller  talk 11:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
Hi Mozartbeethovenbrahms! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at 9/11 conspiracy theories that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. ''In any case, it was clearly a major addition of text yet you marked it as minor. Best to never mark anything as minor.''  Doug Weller  talk 11:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You continue to mark major disputed edits as minor in an area covered by discretionary sanctions
Last chance. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Mozartbeethovenbrahms News outlets did report that a van filled with explosives was stopped on the George Washington Bridge.The report was later denied. Neither arguing against or for this point. Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is irrelevant to my warning. I'm not discussing content. Doug Weller  talk 14:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Article correction
Could you be able to correct Harry Holmes’ testimony in the police interrogation section on Oswald article: the current words, “went downstairs where he encountered Baker” give the impression Oswald said the encounter took place at the second floor lunchroom but Holmes clarifies that Oswald was talking about encountering the officer at the vestibule on the first floor by the front entrance. Holmes describes two set of doors which were in the building vestibule (which were a front lobby between two set of doors). The paragraph could be rewritten to reflect Holmes’ testimony something like: “Oswald said he was at the first floor vestibule by the front entrance and wanted to see what the “commotion” was when he encountered an officer.” 62.254.8.217 (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory into Lee Harvey Oswald. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald
Hi there Mozartbeethovenbrahms, and thanks for your contributions. Could you please stop adding poorly sourced material to this article? Please instead discuss your proposals at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald and gain consensus there before adding any more material. Thanks a lot. John (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)