User talk:SteveSolomons

October 2017
Hello, I'm Sb2001. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Port Arthur massacre (Australia), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. – Sb2001 talk page 14:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Port Arthur massacre (Australia), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  General Ization  Talk   14:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We reply on reliable, published sources here, not on supposed first-hand accounts that cannot be verified (even if they are true). In addition, the encyclopedia never speaks in the first person ("I was at Port Arthur ..."), and when you edit an article, you are speaking in the encylopedia's voice, not your own. If you persist, you are likely to be blocked from editing.   General Ization   Talk   14:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I am Steve Solomons What verification is required? I have tried for 20 years to get the truth out about this event. Please dont accuse me of vandalism just hours after my first post when it is obvious that I am simply trying to correct a historical mistake. That is unfair and drips with elements of administrative smallness and vindictive judgement — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveSolomons (talk • contribs) 15:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Publication in a reliable, published source. <-- Click on the link for more information. You may think it "drips" of something, but otherwise anyone can make any claim, sincere or otherwise, and give it the imprint of truth, just by stating it in an online encyclopedia.  Can you not see that?  General Ization   Talk   15:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

from Steve Solomons. The "dripping' is in regard to the race to label me a "vandal" and has nothing to do with the amount of truth anywhere. Actually most publications are secondary resources that rely on research of statements from witnesses or other evidence that the writer often has to assess without the quality evidence of a well-educated, first-hand witness. In Encyclapedia and academic sources statements by witnesses can be recorded as being what they are where they add an important element to historical context that is missing in the general information. Particularly where they elements of diagnosis that may be important to entire communities in the future analysis of mass murderers I remember supplying and editing tens of thousands bits of data in here when the Castlecops battle was on against global spammers and virus purveyors. My data was printed then — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveSolomons (talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You may note that I revised the warning above to more accurately reflect the warning I intended to give you. It no longer refers to your edit as vandalism. However, the problem remains that you cannot make these statements in your voice, and you cannot make them without citing a reliable source that can be used to verify the statements.  This is not negotiable.  General Ization   Talk   15:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please always sign your edits on any Talk page, including your own, by typing four tildes ( ~ ) after them.  General Ization  Talk   15:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please also see No original research, original research being the term used here for unsourced claims that cannot be independently verified, true or otherwise.  General Ization  Talk   15:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Bloody hell. I just lost and entire page of comments. If I publish an academic note on the event containing photographs and other documents is it then an article that can be referred to? I am a university trained published blogger and author with more than 2000 blog entries as well as a half dozen domains and many web pages, some that are extensive citizen science. I suspect that my profile is higher than the minister of police and I am certainly more honest. I understand about about removing myself from the mix. The government is going to destroy whomever insist this is a historical truth but it is and its important This data will be lost and the to get truth out will be wasted. Re four tildes. I dont understand. Thank you for revising the warning I appreciate that. I am too ill to continue right now so I will probably look in tomorrow or when I can next handle the stress of knowing what this involves. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveSolomons (talk • contribs) 15:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Click on the blue links above (including the one I highlighted for you) to see what qualifies as a reliable source. Generally speaking, no, a self-published blog, even by an academic, does not qualify, because, again, it is not independent of the writer and its contents are not verifiable. Concerning how to sign your edits, see WP:SIGNATURE.   General Ization   Talk   16:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, having reviewed the content of your edit, it is unclear to me what "historical mistake" you are attempting to correct. The article already makes clear that the Martins and the Bryant family intensely disliked each other, for reasons apparently having to do with the Martins' ownership of property the Bryants wanted. Are you trying to suggest that Sally Martin is somehow responsible for the actions of Martin Bryant, or that Bryant's actions were somehow justified because of Martin's opinion of him? If so, it will take a whole lot more than describing a conversation over toast and jam to justify that assertion. Whether or not Sally Martin hated Martin Bryant doesn't appear to be particularly relevant to this article, nor does the omission of this unverified claim appear to be a "historical mistake". Lots of neighbors and/or competitors for property dislike each other, and some even could be said to "hate" each other; they don't generally kill each other, and one does not follow the other. As for whether this animosity might have been a motive for Bryant's actions (the only way in which the animosity is relevant), that is already quite well documented: "Bryant apparently believed the Martins had deliberately bought the property to hurt his family and believed this event to be responsible for the depression that led to his father's suicide, which in turn led to their own murders. Bryant described them as 'very mean people' and as 'the worse [sic] people in my life.'" I don't see that your alleged conversation with Sally Bryant adds anything new to that narrative.  General Ization   Talk   18:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)