User talk:Tuneduzrnem

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Poor reputation website by who?
 * Who has the authority to say that one particular website has a poor reputation or is poor in facts?
 * The website I pointed to has facts right there as it shows the affidavits or important personalities who say that gang stalking exists.
 * Please stay neutral here. Otherwise that page is highly one-sided only. Tuneduzrnem (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Gang stalking, you may be blocked from editing. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  04:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I can understand now why the gang stalking wiki page is one-sided only, it is far from being neutral.
 * I pointed directly to the affidavits of highly placed governmental personalities, what could be better than that? Tuneduzrnem (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Affidavits (and none of these guys were ever anything resembling "highly placed governmental personalities"), like filings in legal cases, are not reliable sources, as they have not undergone any kind of impartial peer review or editorial scrutiny, but rather are cherry-picked by advocates of a position. And the website you linked to is, as I said, definitely a place where a fringe theory mindset prevails. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  04:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well what I meant is they worked for important positions within the FBI and NSA.
 * So what is being needed to show the other point of view?
 * Because the page is FAR from being neutral.
 * Psychiatrists are not Gods, and some could be involved in criminal activities, in conspiracies, and have conflicts of interest.
 * In fact as far as I know most of them don't even know about the existence of electromagnetic weapons, and have not studied organized crime, which may play a very important role in gang stalking. Tuneduzrnem (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about writing what reliable sources say in a neutral manner, not writing what crackpots have to say as equal to what reliable sources say in the name of neutrality. Equivamp - talk 22:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well first of all I see that you are far from being neutral yourself by calling the people I referenced to being 'crackpots', Richard Lighthouse is someone who has done a big amount of research on gang stalking, Dr. Katherine Horton received many important guests as part of her videos, and also talked a lot about her own experiences, and I certainly wouldn't call the former FBI and NSA employees "crackpots", and I think that what they have to say is incredibly important and should be cited somewhere on that wiki page.
 * In fact I'm wondering if you should have any authority whatsoever to make any changes or undo what other editors are putting on that page given the fact that you seem far from being neutral yourself.
 * Also, what I find on that page is a matter of beliefs by psychiatry, where nothing there is being proven (and it's not the little 'study' having been done on gang stalking that will persuade me otherwise, I would need to see how that study has been conducted and in what context etc...) and I will repeat it, psychiatrists in general have no knowledge of electromagnetic weapons nor organized crime, rendering their work on the subject totally null and void.
 * And about the 'Vice' video, it has been mentioned many times by Shane Gibbs, one of the victims portrayed in their first video about gang stalking that a lot of editing took place there, not showing important elements from what I understood (or concealing important elements), and he felt like they wanted to make them look delusional as victims, and his testimonies are available in videos made by himself, and also by TI TV if I remember well, so this wiki page about gang stalking is certainly one-sided only, certainly not neutral, and your undoing of my editing are made on beliefs you have yourself, therefore unacceptable, and people should be able to see the other side of this, and I should be able to cite anyone who has done a tremendous amount of work on this such as Richard Lighthouse and many others, there should be a section on that page devoted to that, otherwise I feel there's something fishy going on here. Tuneduzrnem (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep talking about "electromagnetic weapons", a phrase most of us associate with people wearing tin foil hats. Do not expect us to take you and your sources very seriously. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  06:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, who is "us"?
 * And why would you have any more authority than I can have?
 * Gang stalking is often accompanied with electronic torture.
 * In fact on the 'tin foil hats' wiki page persecutory delusions is being mentioned, thinking again that the people reporting about being attacked by electromagnetic weapons are delusional.
 * Are you following what's happening with the Havana Syndrome?
 * Now the most likely cause for what the diplomats have gone through would be electromagnetic (microwave) weapons (from NBC News): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6Wg5DQacbA
 * Not just the diplomats, politicians or CIA agents are being targeted by these weapons it seems, far from it.
 * So again I have a very reliable source here about these weapons, so like I said I don't know who your "us" is but I think you'll have to begin taking this much more seriously now.
 * You don't have more power than anyone else here on Wikipedia, it's made by the public in general, so if I have sources about what I say I should be able to add to the gang stalking page.
 * I will say it again, your views are a matter of beliefs, and cannot have superiority over the other side of the story where a lot of people are working on and researching things and have come up with a lot of information that keeps getting deleted it seems by your gang ('us') whose views, I will say it again, are only based on your own (and psychiatry's) beliefs and nothing neutral or totally proven yet, even your sources can be unreliable themselves like I mentioned in my previous message, you (and your 'us') shouldn't have any more authority whatsoever than others who want to talk about the other side of the story.
 * Therefore I should be able to add a section about that other side on the gang stalking wiki page. Tuneduzrnem (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia works by policy and consensus. The material you attempted to add violates WP:NOR and WP:RS policies. WP:FRINGE also applies here. You've been reverted and warned twice about adding the material; if you persist in adding it, you will be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the source I gave to Orange Mike regarding electromagnetic weapons (NBC NEWS) could be used as a reliable source then? 104.222.122.53 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Connecting Havana syndrome to Gang stalking violates WP:SYNTH. That source says nothing about gang stalking. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I know, but I just wanted to know if that source example would be a reliable source in the end, and here from what I understand it would apply to the Havana syndrome page.
 * Even though the Havana syndrome is somehow related to the electronic harassment side of gang stalking I'd say, but they're not officially making the link yet. 104.222.122.53 (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If they're not "making the link," making the link yourself is original research. Please take the time to read those policies before editing further. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So from what I understand Wikipedia is just "Wonderland's" Encyclopedia, as everything relies on what is "officially" accepted by the mainstream in general (and the mainstream is very much controlled, those are facts not very hard to research), so Wiki is just another system's tool to keep people ignorant or sleeping. It's quite easy to see with the gang stalking page. My opinion thank you. 69.196.155.108 (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would add that Wikipedia is very often a very unreliable source of information, so much that it's laughable, again like that gang stalking page.
 * Students, police, journalists might visit that poor content page and rely on the information they see there as being the truth (and not understand that it's only a matter of psychiatric belief by people ignorant of so many things that it's very suspicious and worrying), and these people can then create articles that may go mainstream and be regarded as being reliable sources, it's a vicious circle.
 * That gang stalking page is some sort of a fraud, watched very closely by who knows who who may also have a certain interest that the page stays like this.
 * If it's going to stay like that then I'm in favor that it gets deleted, as it simply gives misinformation to the public, concealing important things and not making it clear that the page is only a matter of beliefs by ignorant and/or mal intended people, the page is one-sided only, far from being neutral by what Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. 69.196.155.108 (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)