User talk:SilentFilm101

Welcome!
Hello, SilentFilm101, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Jokestress (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Robert Harron
Thanks for the recent edits to Robert Harron. As you note, his death is shrouded in mystery, with conflicting reports. While I agree that you are raising some interesting issues, Wikipedia articles must adhere only to what has already been published in a book, magazine, or newspaper article. If you have any published sources that discuss hypotheses about his death, we should definitely add them. I made some updates a while back based on news articles of they day. The ideal source is a reporter or commenter discussing them in a published work. These references are generally considered reliable sources for our purposes here. I know this can be frustrating, but these rules are in place to keep article content based on previously published information, and not original research. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To expound on the above, if you add controversial information to an article you need to provide a reliable source. You're adding a bunch of information that seems to be gleaned from your own personal research. Research is great, but we need sources to back up that content that are from a reliable third party. This policy is in place to ensure that we have correct information, not just theories. Please do not add this information back until you can provide reliable sources to back it up. Please see WP:RS and WP:V for more information. Thanks.  Pinkadelica ♣  04:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Robert Harron, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ''You need to provide a source for this content. Period.''  Pinkadelica ♣  07:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Hello again. Editors including me have been trying to work with you on this biography of Robert Harron, but if you continue to add unsourced material that has not been published in a book, newspaper, or magazine, you are going to get blocked from editing. Please do not add your original research. We can only summarize materials previously published in a newspaper, book, or magazine. We cannot use the personal research of editors, especially if it contains unpublished facts. If you have any questions, please let me know. I know this can be frustrating, but these policies are in place for a number of reasons. If you wish to publish your own original research, I recommend setting up a blog or website. We cannot use it here, as it a violation of policy. If you have previously published materials to add from a newspaper, book, or magazine, I can help. If not, please do not re-add the information you keep adding. It is a violation of policy, and I have removed it. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I have indicated that the resource is from the MoMA Film Schedule (1993) and that documents are located there as well. I was the centennial organizer and main lecturer on Harron for that organization.  The Curator of the Museum is a longtime friend and acquaintance.


 * Over the years, I was in contact with Harron's sister as well as an acquaintance with Blanche Sweet (even have a personally addressed photo of her in my study). Granted that fact is not pertinent to the particular Wiki details but do indicate my deep knowledge of the pre-29 film era.  I know my references are secure, retired Librarian, and the details presented have been documented elsewhere over the years, through my work on the matter of his death.  So, please, do not  block out my information as it will only serve to ensure that reader understand the real issues of Harron's death rather than the whitewash set-up by the PR folks and Griffith's input to keep stress keep away from the immediate Harron family at that time.  The matter was of particular note since, as a Catholic, he would not have been allowed a Church burial if his death was officially listed as suicide and his internment would not be in 'sanctioned' land.  Mrs. Harron, the mother, would have been extremely upset.


 * So, before 'removing' the details, do keep Wiki alive with new info - Hence, its original purpose as opposed to the print versions. Furthermore, if you, and others, only want to keep the 'official' details, and block important 'new' info, then Wiki will only be another WorldBookonline.  Lastly, as a longtime user and presenter of Wiki, why are you know 'in charge' of me and my editing dealing with Harron?  Who has made you the person over all?  Thus, I am interested in learning about that detail.  Please let me know?  Afterall, is Wiki now becoming just another 'print' format by a NY/Chicago publisher?  Changes the whole concept of its history and concept.


 * The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize reliable sources that are verifiable. Everyone contributing here is experted to adhere to these policies, which were reached by consensus. I am not in charge of you, but we are all expected to follow the policies, including you. First-hand knowledge is not an acceptable source, nor is self-published materials, as editors have explained. I will try to add some more sourcing about the speculation that it was suicide. If you continue to be disruptive and not review and follow policies, you will be blocked on your next edit. Jokestress (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Final warning on this topic
I have reverted your edits to the Robert Harron article once again, because Wikipedia does not accept original research in ANY form. Jokestress and I have both tried to explain this to you and we have both reverted your edits to this article repeatedly. Unless your research has been published by a reliable, third party source that has been peer reviewed and is verifiable, we cannot accept the information. There is no debating this point. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia but it is still an encyclopedia. As such, there are still policies and standards editors must adhere to if they want their edits to be included. If we didn't have these policies, anyone could add anything and claim it is correct because they "did some research on it". These policies are not debatable. If you want to present your research, I suggest you start a blog or a website that you can control and has no policies. Further, no one is "in charge" of this topic. Editors are unpaid volunteers. Most of us work to ensure policies are followed so people who read Wikipedia are getting correct, properly sourced information. If you need any additional help, feel free to post on the article's talk page. In the meantime, please do not add this content back in any form unless you have reliable sources to back it up.  Pinkadelica ♣  14:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Robert Harron, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Pinkadelica ♣  21:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. Materialscientist (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
I have reverted your edit to Robert Harron once again. First, fansites like this are not considered reliable sources. Second, you have been told repeatedly that your own personal analysis of the situation is not a reliable source. You've already been blocked for adding this content but you continue on as if no one has told you anything. If you re-add this content again, it will be reverted and you'll likely get a longer block. We have tried to work with you to get you to understand Wikipedia policy but you seem more interested in pushing your own agenda than following the rules of this website. Do what you want but you've been adequately warned.  Pinkadelica ♣  08:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for repeated violations of WP:NOR. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. Danger High voltage! 16:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you have evidently misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia. I will try to clarify some issues, in the hope that it may help you to understand what is going on. Wikipedia policy is that we have only content that is covered in verifiable reliable published sources, and that we do not publish original research. I will not spend time analysing the reasons for this in depth, but perhaps it will suffice to point out that anyone can create a Wikipedia account, and claim to have specialist knowledge of a subject, and, unfortunately, many people do come here and make spurious claims. "You can take my word for it, I know because I have been in contact with the relevant people, and because I have seen sources, which I am not showing you" is not a reliable source. Even if you have published your analysis in citable sources, the fact that one person has come up with a novel theory does not outweigh the established body of information, and does not justify asserting your opinions as facts, as you have repeatedly done. You say "if you, and others, only want to keep the 'official' details, and block important 'new' info, then Wiki will only be another WorldBookonline." I have no idea what WorldBookonline is, but Wikipedia does not exist to publicise new and unestablished ideas. Rather, it attempts to provide a readily accessible store of content which has already received substantial coverage in reliable sources.


 * Another important point is that, when you find your edits are challenged by others, it is unconstructive to keep on repeating the same, or substantially the same edits. If you believe your edits are valid then you can argue your case on the relevant talk pages, and try to achieve consensus in favour of your opinion. However, if everyone involved in a disagreement just keeps on trying to force their own version through by repeating it and hoping others will give up, it does not help the project. Doing this, known as edit warring, can lead to being blocked.


 * You clearly have a conflict of interest in writing about your own research. You may be convinced that you are "right", but it is impossible for you to ensure that you do not give undue weight to your own view of what you say yourself is a controversial issue. Much better to leave it for uninvolved, impartial people to do the editing. If your views have received significant coverage in reliable third party sources then someone uninvolved will probably add them.


 * Since you have continued with the same editing which, though no doubt done in good faith, are not in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, despite attempts to explain the situation to you, and despite a short block, you have been blocked again, this time for a week. When the block ends please try to edit within Wikipedia's accepted framework. I suggest looking at the policies and guidelines on reliable sources, verifiability, conflict of interest and no original research. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Robert Harron
I'm not sure how to explain this to you any more clearly but Wikipedia cannot accept unsourced speculation or hearsay no matter how long a subject has been deceased. Harron's death was ruled accidental which means that's all Wikipedia can say it was. You need to find a reliable source that questions the ruling, cite it and then write the content in a neutral way. What you keep adding is basically just one guy saying the death was a suicide because a number of of unnamed doctors said it was. That's an extraordinary claim which must be cited. Again, I suggest you go to the article talk page and present your sources and what you want to write. If it's well sourced, there won't be an issue with adding it. If it's still original research, it's not going in. You've already been blocked for re-adding this information. Your next block will likely be much longer because your repeated insertion of speculation, albeit sporadic, is disruptive and violating several policies including WP:RS and WP:OR.