User talk:Richard Warren Lipack

Edits to Tila Tequila
I don't know why you claim that you cannot contact other editors. For now, click right here and type right under this message to talk to me. I've temporarily turned off you ability to edit Tila Tequila. The material you are adding looks to be a long opinion piece. It would go against our polices to allow material like that to be added.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: New data incorporating documentation of current direction of Tila Tequila Nguyen's life & pursuits
I apologize for reverting your edits, which I misidentified as vandalism, and will not do that again. Unfortunately I'm not the right person answer all of your questions you left on my talk page (I didn't even know of Quickiwiki!), but regarding the following:

''Or can I edit AFTER AUGUST 1st. UNDER MY OTHER NAME REGISTRATION OF "EPOCHWIKI77" I am at THAT level - so should I just edit this post using that handle?''
 * Yes, you can edit the article with your other account. It is not just you who are blocked from editing the article until August 1st, but everyone who doesn't have the Autoconfirmed status. If you need any more help with editing, I recommend placing the text " " on your talk page (this page), and someone should soon come here. I also recommend you to check out the help pages. Again, sorry for reverting your edits (they aren't gone - you can still find them in the page history). Happy editing. Ginsuloft (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   02:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Re: New data incorporating documentation of current direction of Tila Tequila Nguyen's life & pursuits
Here are answers to some of your questions.

''Thank you for getting back to me on this issue regarding the post. Now, are what you are saying - is it such that AFTER August 1st the posting goes back to it original status and anybody without the "Auto-confirmed" status can edit the post? Is it just this 7-8 day period that it is off limits? But I can use my EPOCHWIKI77 right now with "Auto-confirmed" status and start right in to edit.''

You are indeed correct, yes.

''Also, if you are not assigned the post, will some other editor see our correspondence and see what has all happened and leave me alone? Would it look like I would be hit with 'VANDALISM' again - if some other editor get to evaluate this?''

They should notice it normally, but if they don't, post on their talk page as it will alert them with "you have new messages" (notice how you get this when I post on your talk page). Any message will do, like "please investigate my recent edits further", just make sure you get their attention and everything will be fine.

''Also, as you can see, I have maybe 50-60 source links (over half to WIKIPEDIA links as well), after most special words or for specific quotes or sources. Are a lot of these links sufficient as they stands? Or should I also cite REFERENCES - i.e "&lt;ref>" as well - so the references post at the bottom of the page as well? It is very difficult to do this as these are predominately ALL INTERNET sources, which are sometimes rather very non specific as to identifiers - whereas books or magazines are more specific,''

References are very important especially for such a large piece of contribution. I recommend you add a lot of external references, whether it be internet or books, as internal Wikipedia links don't suffice as references. This is why I reverted your edits so quickly. Normally if an edit is properly cited, I leave it alone. Your contribution was extremely long and improperly cited. The only external references I saw weren't really reliable sources. Make sure you refer to reliable sources and avoid internal Wikipedia links as sources. You said you can refer to books - these are very good sources and make your contribution look a lot more authentic.

Is it ABSOLUTELY necessary to at "&lt;ref>" or can I just add a few that are somewhat easy to do or are which I can format properly - as some will be very difficult as I have said.

I'm afraid it is necessary yes, for such a long contribution.

ALSO - can I still be hit with a non-humanoid "BOT" if I start in again to edit?

You shouldn't, but if you do, you can revert it as patrolling bots will only revert once per article and editor. Still, your edit doesn't look like it should warrant a false positive.

Regards, Ginsuloft (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Kevin - I hope that this can be read by you. FLYER 22 reverted my Tila Tequila post and I can not contact them no matter what I do to make contact. The same goes for you. I can not make contact with you for some reason. All contact protocols will not come up for me.

This here is one way I hope that I can make contact.

This is my email address which I hope you will respond to so we can discuss this; dstatler2@echoback.com. I can not even contact you. All contact protocols for you and FLYER22 do not seem to work and no box to write messages in comes up EVER! THE QUICKIWIKI default is causing all kinds of problems connecting it seems, as it is a MIRROR PIRATE site to Wikipedia - which even my first editor on this post GINSULOFT was unaware of! Please email me - so I can discuss this issue with you. Also, why have you contacting me instead FLYER22 - who did the revert?

Please advise and contact me in some way where we can discuss this intelligently.

I am not writing about Illuminati Conspiracy Theories, but I am writing about Tila Tequila - who is now predominately an activist by here own admission, all back-up up with links and proper references. Please read the post and look at the links and references and please contact me at dstatler2@echoback.com.

Thank you.

Richard Warren LipackRichard Warren Lipack (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Tila Tequila
I don't know why you claim that you cannot contact other editors. For now, click right here and type right under this message to talk to me. I've temporarily turned off you ability to edit Tila Tequila. The material you are adding looks to be a long opinion piece. It would go against our polices to allow material like that to be added.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: New data incorporating documentation of current direction of Tila Tequila Nguyen's life & pursuits
I apologize for reverting your edits, which I misidentified as vandalism, and will not do that again. Unfortunately I'm not the right person answer all of your questions you left on my talk page (I didn't even know of Quickiwiki!), but regarding the following:

''Or can I edit AFTER AUGUST 1st. UNDER MY OTHER NAME REGISTRATION OF "EPOCHWIKI77" I am at THAT level - so should I just edit this post using that handle?''
 * Yes, you can edit the article with your other account. It is not just you who are blocked from editing the article until August 1st, but everyone who doesn't have the Autoconfirmed status. If you need any more help with editing, I recommend placing the text " " on your talk page (this page), and someone should soon come here. I also recommend you to check out the help pages. Again, sorry for reverting your edits (they aren't gone - you can still find them in the page history). Happy editing. Ginsuloft (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   02:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Re: New data incorporating documentation of current direction of Tila Tequila Nguyen's life & pursuits
Here are answers to some of your questions.

''Thank you for getting back to me on this issue regarding the post. Now, are what you are saying - is it such that AFTER August 1st the posting goes back to it original status and anybody without the "Auto-confirmed" status can edit the post? Is it just this 7-8 day period that it is off limits? But I can use my EPOCHWIKI77 right now with "Auto-confirmed" status and start right in to edit.''

You are indeed correct, yes.

''Also, if you are not assigned the post, will some other editor see our correspondence and see what has all happened and leave me alone? Would it look like I would be hit with 'VANDALISM' again - if some other editor get to evaluate this?''

They should notice it normally, but if they don't, post on their talk page as it will alert them with "you have new messages" (notice how you get this when I post on your talk page). Any message will do, like "please investigate my recent edits further", just make sure you get their attention and everything will be fine.

''Also, as you can see, I have maybe 50-60 source links (over half to WIKIPEDIA links as well), after most special words or for specific quotes or sources. Are a lot of these links sufficient as they stands? Or should I also cite REFERENCES - i.e "&lt;ref>" as well - so the references post at the bottom of the page as well? It is very difficult to do this as these are predominately ALL INTERNET sources, which are sometimes rather very non specific as to identifiers - whereas books or magazines are more specific,''

References are very important especially for such a large piece of contribution. I recommend you add a lot of external references, whether it be internet or books, as internal Wikipedia links don't suffice as references. This is why I reverted your edits so quickly. Normally if an edit is properly cited, I leave it alone. Your contribution was extremely long and improperly cited. The only external references I saw weren't really reliable sources. Make sure you refer to reliable sources and avoid internal Wikipedia links as sources. You said you can refer to books - these are very good sources and make your contribution look a lot more authentic.

Is it ABSOLUTELY necessary to at "&lt;ref>" or can I just add a few that are somewhat easy to do or are which I can format properly - as some will be very difficult as I have said.

I'm afraid it is necessary yes, for such a long contribution.

ALSO - can I still be hit with a non-humanoid "BOT" if I start in again to edit?

You shouldn't, but if you do, you can revert it as patrolling bots will only revert once per article and editor. Still, your edit doesn't look like it should warrant a false positive.

Regards, Ginsuloft (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Kevin - I hope that this can be read by you. FLYER 22 reverted my Tila Tequila post and I can not contact them no matter what I do to make contact. The same goes for you. I can not make contact with you for some reason. All contact protocols will not come up for me.

This here is one way I hope that I can make contact.

This is my email address which I hope you will respond to so we can discuss this; dstatler2@echoback.com. I can not even contact you. All contact protocols for you and FLYER22 do not seem to work and no box to write messages in comes up EVER! THE QUICKIWIKI default is causing all kinds of problems connecting it seems, as it is a MIRROR PIRATE site to Wikipedia - which even my first editor on this post GINSULOFT was unaware of! Please email me - so I can discuss this issue with you. Also, why have you contacting me instead FLYER22 - who did the revert?

Please advise and contact me in some way where we can discuss this intelligently.

I am not writing about Illuminati Conspiracy Theories, but I am writing about Tila Tequila - who is now predominately an activist by here own admission, all back-up up with links and proper references. Please read the post and look at the links and references and please contact me at dstatler2@echoback.com.

Thank you.

Richard Warren LipackRichard Warren Lipack (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Illuminati conspiracy theories
If you continue to post Illuminati conspiracy theories as if they were factual, your account will be blocked from editing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Richard, if you want to talk to me, just edit this page and reply right after my words.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As for why I'm contacting you instead of Flyer22, it's because I agree with Flyer22: the material you have added has no place here.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kevin;

Thanks for writing back. Editor Ginsuloft has a different way of emailing him back thru Wikipedia. Your way I never heard of, but thanks for writing back and I hop this works.

Here is the issue. Tila Tequila is basically no longer in the entertainment business full time, as she was forced out of it by not succumbing to certain demands. She was supposed to appear on the Alex Jones radio show last year in late 2012, but there was a suspicious situation that happened which nobody is explaining from Jones camp - but Tila Tequila feels that the instance was a set-up to make her non-credible. Video statements and writings by her support all of this. It is NO THEORY. What happened is fact and I wrote about it as fact - because it is FACT.

Alex Jones is INTERNATIONALLY broadcasted and worldwide known - but yet is tagged a "conspiracy theorist" to try to silence him when in fact he has become the main link on the Matt DRUDGE REPORT... which is not any sort of 'conspiracy' site as you should know. He is the subject of news articles worldwide weekly. The stories he breaks first become mainstream news later. THIS IS ALL FACT.

Any way, I see that you or FLYER22 have not read my Tila Tequila post or checked any of the references. I spent over a week on this and the post is not even being read by you folks - just quickly deleted one minute after being uploaded.

This is unfair and not correct at all, nor is it professional protocol. I am not posting these FACTS as theories, but as facts with viable links and factual references and QUOTES backed up to the direct sources and videos.

EDITOR GINSULOFT was kind enough to write me about this when I couldn't resp0ond to yo because of the new QUICKIWIKI problematic default!!!!!!!!!! Please see his comments above - and he TOLD ME THAT I SHOULD BE ABLE to re-post this material if I add viable links and references, which I have copiously done.

NOW, if you look at the current WIKIPEDIA post for Tila Tequila, the last bit of "news" is from 2010. I have added all material that is current and which reflects Tequila's new life and purpose - since she was "BLACKLISTED" from Hollywood. She currently does not even live in California!

Tila Tequila has been an activist since 2010 touting what some call theory, but that is not the issue. Whatever she is doing IS WHAT SHE IS DOING - immaterial of what you or FLYER22 believe is the issue or purpose of what she is doing. You intimate that what she is doing is a CONSPIRACY THEORY! That makes NO SENSE!

Why are making a rash judgement on what Tila Tequila is doing and what course her life is currently taking? SHE IS A REAL PERSON and ALL OF THESE THINGS about her are REAL, and have happened and have been documented....... PERIOD.

I am just documenting what she IS DOING based on document links and references.

She started a new website called www.anonymousthruthblog.com last week. This is the direction she has taken which I have copiously documented with fact, links, her own videos, radio shows, and books. She is no longer in the modeling business. She has appeared in a movie recently, but that was shot 2 years ago.

Please point out to me what is 'theory' about documenting a person's changing life as I have succinctly done? I want to face my accusers her. If I need to make some changes, please point them out and I will certainly make them. I made proper improvements on GINSULOFT's recommendation and he said that you and FLYER22 should make note of it.

You are assuming that because Tila Tequila was a model, that she is still a model! That now is a THEORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Last year I had made a upload revision to the WIKIPEDIA COCA COLA post with 4 pics. Earlier I had made a major revision to WILLIAM FOTHERGILL COOKE - based on a manuscript journal I discovered of his which DOCUMENTS the INVENTION of the first electronic communications system in the world (INTERNET) and I used Wikipedia to show this discovery. It has now been translated to the SPANISH WIKIPEDIA.

However, when I first posted the COCA COLA revision, the one editor on it REVERTED it, then TORE into my WILLIAM FOTHERGILL COOKE post - all for no reason!!!!!!!!!!!!! To make a long sorry short, HE APOLOGIZED and reverted everything back.

My COCA COLA story in WIKIPEDIA incidentally led to a COVER STORY on the Dr.Pemberton subject in the WALL STREET JOURNAL on Dec. 27 & 28th 2012 by the way. I wrote a book called "EPOCH MOMENTS AND SECRETS - JOHN LENNON AND THE BEATLES AT THE MIRROR OF MAN'S DESTINY." Two copies are kept at HARVARD UNIVERSITY and one is at CORNELL. Quotes from this book are widely discussed through-out the Spanish speaking world, as is my COCA COLA story on Dr. Pemberton. The story by the way was also picked-up, modified and released in the DAILY MAIL in LONDON, Ireland, India and Australia! It also make it to over 100 TV WEBSITES in the US. I can send you all the links. But the basis for the story was WIKIPEDIA - which your editor shredded recklessly and deleted at first!

Also, you can check and see my Beatles book IS CURRENTLY a part of WIKIPEDIA's ongoing Beatles STUDY PROJECT. And my BOOK "EPOCH MOMENTS AND SECRETS - JOHN LENNON AND THE BEATLES AT THE MIRROR OF MAN'S DESTINY." HAS what you say 'CONSPIRACY THEORY' all through it! IF THAT IS GOOD for a ongoing WIKIPEDIA STUDY PROJECT, why am I wrongly belittled here with threats of 'BLOCKING FROM POSTING ANYTHING' when both you and FLYER22 haven't given more than ONE MINUTE at reading my upload post revision on Tila Tequila. Now that SOUNDS like a 'CONSPIRACY'!!!!!!

You are making generalized assumptions that are unprofessional and I respectfully trust that you will now give this story revision I have submitted a proper examination that is done in a professional manner and which is based on the facts and links I have copiously submitted and not base your opinion on some preconceived "theory" you so ASSUMES exists in the context of the post that I have submitted.

Also, it should be noted that if you bother to check the current Tila Tequila WIKIPEDIA post, there are over a dozen or two dozen DEAD LINKS!!!!!!!!!!! The whole post is a complete abomination!!!!! Why is that as an editor such an abomination in this Tila Tequila post not seem to not concern you, but ASSUMING what I have done that you have not even cared to read, only concerns you in so far completely eradicating it with exhibiting virtually no professional consideration or protocols or implementing any proper evaluative procedures of any kind other than a seconds long effort to expunge?

Sincerely,

Richard Warren Lipack72.10.67.226 (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the normal way of communicating on Wikipedia. Notice that when you press "talk" in someone's signature, it takes you to a page much like this. The way we talk is just to edit the pages to include the message. The problem is that you are treating the material posted on anonymoustruthblog.com like it has credibility. Mentioning that Tila Tequila maintains a blog where she discusses the Illuminati, dietary practices, and Atlantean history is one thing: detailing the various rants is another. Your 96K addition can be summarized in three or four sentences. The Wikipedia article about Tila Tequila is not a soapbox to promulgate her material from.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Kevin;

The anonymoustruthblog.com which I note you have just gone to and looked at is a simple last minute addition I made to the uploaded Tila Tequila post, and although I mentioned the new site in the recent upload to Tila Tequila, is not the main point of discussion. I only mentioned it to you to illustrate what direction Tila Tequila has taken.

Again, you are rushing to conclusions based on preconceived notions. I respectively ask that you give me the courtesy in reading the article I wrote - because you still have not read it - judging from your comments saying - I am writing about her Blog which is only a few days old.

It is hard to understand how you are unable to assimilate this factual information.

I have documented what Tila Tequila has done with her life since 2010 and what caused her to take that path that her life has taken for her. She had been on Facebook for the last 2 years, actually - also mentioned in my story addition.

I have documented FACTUALLY with links how Tila Tequila has been kicked out of Hollywood, for exposing the mind control tactics that are used on many Hollywood stars - as an attempt of such was mad eon her. THIS STUFF IS REAL and it HAPPENED. She was the FIRST to come out with these truths, and now what she was first to speak out about, others are speaking out about it - yet she is being ridiculed - because the powers-that-be want to silence her. THIS IS REAL!

The anonymoustruthblog.com HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT!!! She did do a wonderful lead piece though on the subject in her new blog, but that is not the point here.

I HAVE DOCUMENTED PAST EVENTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED THAT HAVE FORMED A HISTORY OF TILA TEQUILA, which is completely lacking in the current post - a post now made up of now many dead links.

It is interesting to note that essentially what you are now saying is that my story isn't a 'conspiracy theory' anymore, but rather a 'Wikipedia article about Tila Tequila that is  a soapbox to promulgate her material from.'

I certainly do see your NEW point here to a degree. But this is a complex story and it is a story which can not be credible unless it has the MANY facts shown and juxtaposed between each fact supported by links and references - to prove the credibility of the story.

Editor GINSULOFT told me that as long as I show proper REFERENCES, which I have, he had no real problem with the story.

Sure, I can trim down the post if that is okay with you. Work with me sand I will work with you.

The purpose of the post is to show how Tila Tequila was kicked out of the Hollywood scene for speaking out against them about a subject they PREFER should be treated as a crazy "rant" or "conspiracy theory."

Certainly I can mention that she maintains a new blog now that discusses 'Illuminati, dietary practices, and Atlantean history' as you indicate, but you are referring to the rest of my post as documenting her "rants."

I can trim it down, but I still want to document what happened to Tila Tequila and how her life took a change of course. Is that okay with you? It will still have to be more than '4 sentences' - because it is not about anonymoustruthblog.com - the which I agree, should take perhaps up to 4 sentences.

I would appreciate it if you would be more concise with your editorial criticisms and not make snap judgements based again, on you not reading my post properly. All it seemed you did was reflect on the new blog and not on the main thrust of the upload i.e. - that she was CAST OUT OF HOLLYWOOD for speaking out AFTER she was locked into a room traumatized to accepting to do demoralizing things in the entertainment business, things against her personal convictions, and came close to being part of the MK-ULTRA program.

This MK-ULTRA program is ALSO heavily documented in my book that is now in HARVARD UNIVERSITY and CORNELL. This was a govt project that started in the 1950's - was allegedly shut down in 1977 after the CIA was caught drugging children in an orphanage in Canada with LSD and a practice is still being implemented in various sectors of society. NONE OF THIS IS CONSPIRACY THEORY. Look it up! It was investigated by the Rockefeller Commission in 1977 in Congress! You are not a historian. I am...... please pre-judge and minimalize what I am seeking to write about Tila Tequila.

Work with me in a constructive manner and I will certainly work with you.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Richard Warren LipackRichard Warren Lipack (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I will write a concise review: none of the sources you have included pass WP:RS (and that includes links to Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles cannot use Wikipedia articles as a source). Sites like americanlivewire.com conspirazzi.com, and ladydragon.com don't even approach the source quality required to pass our policies for insertion of material in a biography.Statements like "The April 4, 2010 celebrity blog launch by Tila Tequila Nguyen of her website MissTilaOMG.com represented much more than a simple transformation beyond Nguyen's short lived TilasHotSpotDating.com", "Nguyen began discussing and disclosing something unlike she had ever done before. It seemed to be rather provocative.", "The article cleverly used a form of comparative analysis", "Nguyen has been plagued by alleged government intrusion into her life and activities", and "The attacks to silence Tila Tequila Nguyen apparently are linked to her initial MissTilaOMG.com blog post of June 6, 2010" are just a few examples of where your writing goes well outside of what could possible be included in an encyclopedia article. It's rife with value judgements, using laudatory adjectives and taking for granted that there actually are attacks to silence Tila Tequila Nyugen. There is essentially none of your contribution that has any value to an encyclopedia. If you insert it in her biography again, you will be blocked.&mdash;Kww(talk) 06:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI
You are being discussed at WP:ANI.&mdash;Kww(talk) 06:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC) &mdash; (Archived in ANI archive 807) You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. See the IP block list for more bans and blocks. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  21:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)