User talk:Hiii98

Welcome!

Hello Hiii98, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Also, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Wikiquette suggest that defacing a Wikipedia:User page such as you did here is not cool. Wikipedia:External links#What should not be linked to specifies that "Sites that primarily exist to sell products" are not cool to link to. I understand that you find it distressing the links to sites that you don't see as distinct from yours; if you wish to discuss this, please take the subject up on the Wikipedia:Talk page of the affected pages. Josh Parris 06:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You just defaced my user page, how is this "cool"?

This discussion is happening on your Wikipedia:Talk page - changes to this page generate the notification "you have new messages" that you saw at the top of the page. Your Wikipedia:User page can be edited by clicking the red link labelled "user page" in the top right corner of this page. Articles have a tab next in from the "article" tab - the "discussion" tab. Click on this to leave a message for other editors about the content of that article. Josh Parris 01:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So why is our site www.cheap56k.com not relevant to any of the ISP fields? We are considered the most relevant ISP directory within our niche field. We have spidered the access numbers of every isp in america, we have their contact information, all access numbers... actually any insightful info a end user could seek regarding his or her particular isp. We also have the second most recognized ISP forum on the net. I cant even begin to describe how ingrained our site is regarding origional and insightful articles and knowledge regardng dialup internet access. ON top of it all we have even removed most ads just to establish ourselves as a more recognized authority on the topic. Having owned 2 dialup isps, and now maintaining daily relationships with almost all of the major providers has given us the experience and connections to contribute knowlege to this wiki collection. I'm offended at your seemingly breif overview of could be a wealth of information contained within our site.

Skinwalker Ranch[edit]

To answer your question, any material must be reliably sourced. That means sources must be mainstream, third party, and independent, rather than unknown paranormal, UFO, or conspiracy web pages. Wikipedia doesn't create news or break stories, it only summarizes reports from trustworthy sources such as scholarly books and journals or well-established press who employ editorial oversight. For example, sites generally considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia include www.bbc.co.uk, www.nytimes.com, www.sportsillustrated.com, www.forbes.com, www.newsweek.com, www.smithsonianmag.com, www.discovermagazine.com, www.nature.com, www.time.com, www.billboard.com, www.physicsworld.com, etc. and others. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but please direct your comments to the Talk:Skinwalker_Ranch page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paulding Light[edit]

Your claim that you personally made a phone call to verify the legitimacy of Ripley's reward on the Paulding Light is not a proper reference. It's called conducting "original research" and it isn't allowed on Wikipedia. You have to back something up with a third party claim from a published book, documentary or legitimate website. Yes it may just be rumor, but to definitely say it is because you made a phone call is not good enough for inclusion. Cyberia23 (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm not gonna argue over this stupid light with you. The point I'm trying to make is that a link to a website posting a claim such as Backwoods Wisconsin saying Ripley's made an offer, is more LEGITIMATE than some random person from the internet saying "I made a phonecall and hey told me it's not legit". The reason is because people can go to the website and SEE the claim and make their own decision if it's BS or not. They can't teleport to your house and move back through time to observe you make the actual phone call to Ripley's. Therefore sir, your research cannot be proven as it falls under W:OR. The best we can do is change the wording so where the claim originates from is clearly stated. Otherwise your beef is with Backwoods so maybe you should email them and call them out on the claim. You cannot say it's been proven to be unfounded because you made a phone call. Cyberia23 (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC) lol so i guess they disproved the light in 2010... so i assume the students who disproved it all won a million billion dollars right because your source is accurate right? I f'n told you guys the source was a rumor and completely and entirely unfounded. I wasted my time making the phone call to ripleys to verify this and instead of was chastized. way to demonstrate wikipedias destruction of the truth or any attempt to keep a topic relevant[reply]

Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura[edit]

Do not copy text word-for-word from other sources as you did with this edit from this website. It is a copyright violation and violates Wikipedia's Copyright policy. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pasting Copyrighted text to Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura[edit]

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

You were told before to STOP PASTING COPYRIGHTED TEXT into articles as you did [again] for the Conspiracy Theory article. You will be reported for violating Wikipedia's copyright policy if you continue to ignore these warnings, and your account could be blocked from editing. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE CURRENT SUMMARIES ARE NOT COPYRIGHTED!?!? THEY ALL ALL, THEY ARE WORD FOR WORD SUMMARIES FOR EACH EPISODE. YOU SHOULD BE BLOCKED FOR CONSISTANTLY REMOVING MY EDITS ONLY TO EDIT THEM BACK IN YOURSELF. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE CURRENT SUMMARIES FOR EACH EQISODE ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN. THEY ARE ALL TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM TV GUIDE WEBSITES!!! THEY WERE NOT CREATIVELY WRITTEN BY YOU

Yeah I dealt with you before. Just FYI, I did write the article summaries myself, and like the rest of the article it's under the creative commons so it's in the public domain which is why they could appear on other websites. However you've taken something you found outside Wikipedia and copy/pasted it here. I've found the same exact words on several websites but despite this, it's not written in an encyclopedic way.

"UFOs corralled in the Utah desert could it be true?"

Wikipedia, believe it or not, is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias answer questions. THEY DON'T ASK THEM! An encyclopedia is supposed to list FACTS or explain something in a way that is generally accepted, not hypothesize on things.

And the rest reads like a damn advertisement not an informational statement.

"An eccentric millionaire may indeed have a secret or two tucked away on hundreds of acres of a privately owned and heavily guarded ranch, and its not for R&R. Amazingly, his reach extends far beyond the states, and into outer space, where he is building a space station of his very own to retreat should things on earth go awry. Yet when Jesse hears tales that people have died battling aliens on our soil, he knows this is no joke, but could be a deadly conspiracy that could be out of this world."

It's sloppy, lazy, poor quality editing and detracts from the article's integrity. So, I suggest you read the Wikipedia Manual of Style to learn how to write for Wikipedia before you slap any old thing here.

And nice try, by the way, adding my personal page to Deletions - LOL! Just keep proving your nothing but a vandal and see how long YOUR account lasts before it gets deleted. Have a nice day. Cyberia23 (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]