User talk:Topher Hammond

October 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to USS Cooperstown, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - wolf  21:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

USS Cooperstown
Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to post your anti-war views, including edits such as this about a so-called "naming controversy" surrounding this ship, where you posted your lengthy anti-war (and conspiracy theory) views in the article, claiming they were supported as a "letter to an editor". That edit was reverted as being unsourced. You then tried to re-add mention of this "naming controversy" again, but with an added reference to "Hometown Oneonta, August 30-31, 2018, p. A-6.", which I can only imagine is the date and page your "letter to the editor" was printed in the local paper. There is a absolutely no mention of this so-called controversy to be found, your claim that "search engines have apparently blocked the results relating to the controversy about the USS Cooperstown" notwithstanding. Please stop disrupting this article with your non-WP:NPOV edits. Thank you - wolf  18:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, "Wolf," I am posting this since Wikipedia seems to offer no means to appeal a decision of one of their anonymous censors. I modified my edit to include a source that makes clear that there was opposition to the naming of this warship after my hometown.  It was neutral, merely mentioning that not all locals were in agreement with the naming of this warship, which is clearly indicated in the local newspaper.  If the article cannot be found online, that does not negate the fact that it is in the public domain, and that it clearly indicated oppositon to the naming of this ship.  I can scan and send you a copy of the newspaper that I referenced in my brief comment, if that makes any difference.  The other sources cited in this article have no more validity than the local paper, so I do not understand how they pass wikipedia scrutiny while my edit does not.  I edited out all personal commentary on the subject, and merely referenced the fact that not everyone in Cooperstown celebrated the naming of a warship after their hometown.  That is an undisputed fact if one refers to the cite I provided.  Since you use loaded terminology such as "soapbox," "antiwar," and "conspiracy theory" I have to wonder how neutral your editing is.  Please explain why references to certain publications are considered legitimate, while others are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topher Hammond (talk • contribs) 14:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi "Topher", I realize you are new here and I would like to try and assist you if I can. If you have joined because you want to start contributing to the building and maintenance of this project, then I would strongly suggest you read through the 'welcome' notice I placed at the top of this page, including all the links, as they contain a great deal of useful information for new users. Wikipedia can be extremely difficult for newcomers. Fortunately, there are venues, such as the help desk and Teahouse that can assist you when needed.


 * Now, if you only joined to edit this one article, I can help address that to. I removed the information you added both times, with what is known as a revert. The first time I did so because it was not supported by a reliable source, and I added the notice above to inform you of that. But even then, that edit was very problematic, for several reasons. When you made the second edit, the content itself was not as problematic as the first, but I reverted it as WP:NOTNEWS, because, basically, it isn't. A single mention in a single, small-town newspaper, that a small group of people, who are anti-war protesters, were displeased with a Navy ship being named after their town, does not merit enough WP:WEIGHT for inclusion. Add to that the fact that the article is a stub, meaning it is new with very little content, and the inclusion of your edit would put the article out of balance. I am not an "anonymous" censor, I am just a volunteer editor. And while we don't call it an "appeal" process, you can contest my removal of your edit, by way of Dispute Resolution. I was under the initial impression that your reference was to your "letter to the editor". If that was incorrect, then I would be interested to learn more (sending me scan is not necessary or required), as I tried to search for more info with the details you gave but was not able to find anything. Aside from that, the terms I used can hardly be called "loaded"; to  begin with  "soapbox" is actually a policy page I linked to, "antiwar" is clearly what you define yourself as, and what else would you call it when someone claims that all the search engines got together and conspired to block any and all mention of a handful of anti-war protesters griping about the name of navy ship, other than a "conspiracy theory"?


 * Anyway, whether we agree or not, I hope you find my response, and the additional links I've added, helpful. (Please click on and read all the links I've provided, as they contain a great deal more info about what we're discussing, what guidelines are involved and how Wikipedia works in general.) Happy editing and welcome to Wikipedia. - wolf  19:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Help me!
Hi, I want to know how I can have someone else evaluate my edit to an article on Wikipedia. I was receptive to critiques by an anonymous editor going by 'wolfchild,' and changed my edit to include only facts documented in a local newspaper. "wolfchild" accused me of being antiwar, and deleted my modified submission, which consisted of only one sentence and a cite to something in the public domain. I am not sure how qualified someone who calls themselves 'wolfchild' is to censor something which questions war and killing, she accused me of being 'antiwar' and a 'conspiracy theorist.' I would like to appeal her decision regarding my 2nd submission on the article titled "USS Cooperstown." Thank you. Topher Hammond (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Please help me with...

Topher Hammond (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed your edits to USS Cooperstown. Why do you think it is important to include the information? Courtesy ping . Sam Sailor 21:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am closing the template above. Further discussion can take place on the article talk page. I suggest you refrain from personal attacks, Thewolfchild has basically said none of the things you accuse them of. Sam Sailor 21:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Hi Wolfchild, please instruct me as to how I can get a different person to edit my posts. Your name itself suggests a bias, someone who considers themselves a predator, and, by inference, someone who enjoys killing, and is likely to view 'antiwar' statements as unacceptable. thank you, ahimsa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topher Hammond (talk • contribs) 15:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi again "Topher" (or is it "ahimsa"?) I will try to address both this comment (which I initially missed because you originally placed it in the middle of the text in the 'welcome' template above. First, you can use the "help me" template like you've just posted above or you can use the dispute resolution process that I mentioned above. This is what we call a "content dispute", so I would imagine anyone replying to the "help me" request would direct you to dispute resolution anyway. I'd like to add that my username name infers no editorial stance or policy on my part. It's just a name (that I actually picked  from a old love song that I like), and Wikipedia encourages anonymous usernames. I am a "he", so I'm not sure how you derived that I'm female from my comments and actions so far (but it's nice to know I'm apparently in touch with my feminine side ;-)) Also, I did not remove your edits because "I think you're anti-war". As  clearly, and repeatedly stated, your first edit was not supported by any sources and your second edit was removed as NOTNEWS (and UNDUE). So, please... keep your comments honest and respectful and try not to be disingenuous or insulting. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Just don't forget to ping me and sign your posts. Thanks -  wolf  20:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)