User talk:Pookzta

Welcome

Hello, Pookzta! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Scientizzle 13:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

File permission problem with File:DrJudyWood.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:DrJudyWood.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I have permission to use the images, they are not only public images, but Dr. Wood has given me permission herself. She should be emailing you within 48 hours to verify that she has given me permission, in addition to the fact that the content is FREE USE, and is publicly available at her website. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Acroterion _(talk) 00:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the links are not inappropriate. They are all related to who she is, and the research she has done, and why she is a notable person. Thanks. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 06:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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) 06:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Wood

Please do not edit or add to archived discussions as you did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Wood. If you want to appeal the decision to delete the page, please use the Deletion Review process. Information about how to do that is found on this page. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 08:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Mistake

sounds good, sorry about that. someone directed me to that page so I thought that was where I was supposed to appeal the deletion. I now understand that there is a discussion page in the recently deleted thread.

Sorry for the mistake, I am new here, but learning quick.

Thanks.

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 08:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Judy Wood

I understand you're trying to get permission from whomever owns the content on that website to release the material posted there under her copyright and post it under a free content license. However, looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Wood, the article would still need to establish notability, which it has not. That said, since the page is protected from recreation, you will have to request a deletion review of the article so that it addresses both the copyright and notability problems. Follow the directions in the link in the previous sentence to start one if you need to. Regards, –MuZemike 08:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping

A number of editors have already told you that the correct place to appeal the deletion of an article is deletion review - forum shopping (taking the same problem to a number of different places) is frowned upon.

If you want to appeal the deletion of the article - take it to deletion review. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

I am new to Wikipedia, this was the first article I ever created. I finally found the proper place to request for deletion review and am in the process of doing so. Thanks for the help. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Your signature

must include a link to your userpage (which doesn't exist) or your talk page (or this page). Otherwise nobody'd know how to contact you. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my bad, will go change it. How's this?

'''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- That's better. Kayau Voting IS evil 08:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to 9/11 Truth movement. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 12:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

9/11 Truth Movement & Dr. Judy Wood

Seeing as Dr. Judy Wood is the only person to have filed her evidence with the courts in pursuit of truth and justice, and also considering that one of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court, I think it is fairly obvious that the following information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia Page:

1. I think that Dr. Judy Wood's Journal of 9/11 Research & 9/11 Issues needs to be included in the external links section alongside the other Journals of 9/11 Research.

2. I also think that her name needs to be included in the Adherents of the 9/11 Truth Movement, especially considering she is the only person to actually take legal action, in addition to scientific research, in pursuit of 9/11 truth.

3. I also think that her legal efforts, especially the Supreme Court case, needs to be included in the History of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as it was the only court-case ever filed in pursuit of 9/11 Truth, and it made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

In 2007, Dr. Judy Wood filed several legal cases against the National Institute of Standards & Technology's (NIST) contractors for science fraud, and legal requests that NIST’s fraudulent data gets reexamined. [1] The filings in these legal cases included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act [2], and Qui Tam whistle-blower cases. [3] Dr. Wood is the only 9/11 researcher who has submitted evidence to the courts in pursuit of the truth.

These are obviously supposed to be on this Wikipedia page, so I truly question the motives of those who are deleting this information. Her effort speaks for itself, and this information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia page for the sake of honesty and accuracy.

Please help.

Thank you,

-Abe

'''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)

Stop now.

You are being disruptive by spamming your concerns all over the place. If you want to be taken seriously and have the best shot at getting an article on your subject approved, quit pasting hyperbolic screeds everywhere. Slow down. The deletion review is the proper place to have raised your concerns. Please pay attention to the arguments there--they will explain why the most recent incarnations of your article were deleted and what you need to do to fix the issue. If you won't demonstrate a willingness to listen and learn, nobody will want to help you and you'll be out of luck... — Scientizzle 13:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: OK I will post it there. I am just sick and tired of people censoring information that is verifiable and credible. The admin has absolutely no reason to be deleting the information from the 9/11 Truth Movement page. I am not talking about the Judy Wood page, I am talking about the admin deleting ANY and ALL information about Dr. Judy Wood from the 9/11 Truth Movement page.

Thanks for the tip.

-Abe

'''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)

Tossing around allegations of censorship is contrary to WP:AGF. Read that page--it's very important to understand if you're going to have a chance around here. Also, note how I re-formatted you comment immediately above this one so that it reads more clearly at the same level of indentation? You should feel free to revert this change, but adjusting the way you format your messages will make it easier to understand your comments by reducing the chances of someone misinterpreting the authorship, organization, or intended message of a particular post. — Scientizzle 13:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for helping me align the text. I am obviously new :) What I don't understand is why the admin even removed her name from the list of names of 9/11 researchers in the Adherents section. This fact alone is easy to verify. Instead, he told me that I need to "discuss it" first. There is nothing to discuss, it is as simple as going to her website. Thank you for your help, it is much appreciated. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)

Wait a second, the deletion review for the page 'Judy Wood' is NOT the same as the deletion review for information about Dr. Wood belonging on the 9/11 Truth Movement page. This is bogus. Can you please explain why you did that when they are separate topics and separate complaints? '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)

If an article is deleted, you can appeal that at Deletion review. If 'content' is removed from an article, that is discussed at the article talkpage not at deletion review. The Judy Wood article has been deleted, that is being discussed at Deletion review. The paragraph you want to add to the 9/11 Truth Movement page should be discussed on the talk-page of that article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes...this is why you need to slow down...The deletion review is the proper forum to discuss the deletion of Judy Wood. Inclusion of material about/involving Judy Wood in other articles would be appropriately discussed on the talk pages of the article(s) in question. You've sorta mish-mashed all these concerns together and its becoming intractable. Slow down and do things more carefully...Please be sure you know more about reliable sourcing, the policy on verifiable claims and avoid original research. There's a lot to learn and you'll get buried if you don't relax a bit. — Scientizzle 13:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarifying. Now, in regards to the 9/11 Truth Movement page, what is there to discuss? The information is easily verifiable and without a doubt should be added to the page. There is nothing to discuss, one simply has to check out the references to understand why the information should be added to that page. How can this be done? Thanks. -Abe '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)

It can't with the sources you have provided, there is no evidence that the individual in question is notable. You have supplied material that either indicated that she a) exists or b) that has certain ideas. You have provided no sources that indicate that her 'contribution' is taken seriously anywhere or that she is a notable figure in the 9/11 debate. Without such sources, anytime you try to add her to the article it will be deleted. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this source not notable? It is a government website. Why can't her name be mentioned on the page for the fact that she is the ONLY 9/11 researcher to submit evidence to the courts? Isn't that notable?

Government RFC Filings

Dr. Wood's Qui-Tam Supreme Court Qui-Tam Case

'''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)

The first is what we call a primary source - it tells us that someone made a filing, that's it. It had no value in determining if an individual is notable. The second is her own website, for obvious reasons of circular logic we cannot use someone's own website to determine if they are notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But in the history of the 9/11 Truth Movement there is a section discussing Dr. Jones's RFC filing, so why can't Dr. Wood's be discussed? Dr. Jones has never filed a court case based on his thermite evidence, yet he gets mentioned plenty on that page. How come Dr. Wood is not mentioned? How come her Supreme Court case is not mentioned? How is this fair and accurate information? '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)

You need to stop with the arguments about "fair" mentions...there is no right to a Wikipedia article, and it won't convince the editors around here. What you need to be most successful is some good citations of media coverage about Judy Wood; not just mentions of her, not her own website, not a court document she filed--she needs to be the subject of some secondary coverage. That will go a looooong way in helping you out. — Scientizzle 13:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that the only 9/11 researcher to gather evidence and submit it to the courts not notable? How is it that the evidence-based case makes it all the way to the SUPREME COURT, yet it is not even mentioned on the 9/11 Truth Movement page? How is that not notable? Here is a link to one of the pages of her Supreme Court case: Dr. Judy Wood Qui-Tam Supreme Court Case How is that not notable? Can you please explain this? '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)

Furthermore, I was told to discuss this on the 9/11 Truth Movement talk page, but now I am not allowed to all of a sudden? I posted this information there for discussion, but it was deleted, and a reference was given to the Deletion Review of the 'Judy Wood' page instead! Why was I told to discuss it one place, but then prohibited from doing so?

You don't appear to be listening. An article on Judy Wood will not be accepted unless you can demonstrate secondary source coverage. Read this: Wikipedia:Notability.

Inclusion of Judy Wood-related material in, say, the 9/11 Truth movement article would be accomplished by presenting a properly sourced claim for evaluation at Talk:9/11 Truth movement. Given that you're still learning about sourcing on Wikipedia, I'd say wait a bit before doing that...learn more about what is acceptable and what is expected. — Scientizzle 13:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, but I looked at the definiteion of Secondary Sources you provided, and I assure you, there are plenty of them. Please look:

1. Dr. Wood has given many presentations of her research. In 2007 she gave a presentation at a conference in Madison, WI. Here is a link to that presentation: http://atomicnewsreview.org/2010/03/06/911-the-new-hiroshima-dr-judy-wood/

2. Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on the very popular radio show, 'We Ourselves', hosted by Ambrose Lane. The radio station is WPFW 89.3 - Washington, D.C. The interview is all over the internet, but a direct link to it is here: http://www.weourselves.org/wpfw/052308.html I planned on posting these things later on, but the page was deleted so rapidly!

3. Dr. Wood recently appeared on the Republic Broadcasting Network radio network: http://republicbroadcasting.org/

4. Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on a very popular radio and TV show known as "Edge Media TV" See the interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_4NrRioRPU

5. Dr. Wood recently was presented her research on 'The Power Hour' radio show hosted by Genesis Communications Network. This is a very large radio show. The interview happened just a few weeks ago.

6. Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on 'The Veritas Show' with Mel Fabregas. Here is a recording of some of the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPXcoqrCBvw

'''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)

1. This is a blog, not a reliable source.

2. Broken link.

3. Republic Broadcasting Network -- maybe something here, but no detail to a specific source to help evaluate the actual coverage.

4 & 6. Youtube links generally don't fly around here. Edge Media TV & Mel Fabregas don't appear to be particularly reliable sources.

5. Genesis Communications Network may also suffer from notability/reliability concerns...it's hard to know without a better citation. — Scientizzle 14:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment - #2 works for me, but an interview on the local radio channel WPFW probably doesn't meet WP:RS for an academic (or in general). --bonadea contributions talk 15:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why #2 isn't working for me, but everytime I click on it I get nothing but "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage"... — Scientizzle 16:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link #2 is not broken. I just went there again and clicked play and it is working just fine. Try it again, and then just click play on the player.

#2: Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on the very popular radio show, 'We Ourselves', hosted by Ambrose Lane. The radio station is WPFW 89.3 - Washington, D.C. The interview is all over the internet, but a direct link to it is here: http://www.weourselves.org/wpfw/052308.html

Thanks. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)

Enough

You've had your say. It's now time to accept consensus and drop the stick before you end up being blocked for disruption. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hey, I'm sorry you've run into a hail of gunfire for your contributions but unfortunately we see this quite a lot with newcomers passionate about their causes and eager to get the word out.

Rather than cocking your pistols and returning fire, I'd suggest you sit back for awhile and it upon yourself to tidy up some existing articles to get a lay of the land and see how things operate. To avoid distractions, I would stick to non-controversial topics for the time being. Not only would you learn some interesting things about obscure topics but you'd become better acquainted with the stylistic conventions used here and better able to format and present your own articles when the time comes. You'll start to learn the differences in language & style, differentiate opinion from the verifiable, and begin to appreciate how your fellow authors can work with you to improve all the articles you care about. Hope you can take a deep breath and make another attempt here. --Hooperbloob (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DrJudyWoodQuiTam.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DrJudyWoodQuiTam.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:DrJudyWood.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:DrJudyWood.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Filing evidence in a court doesn't mean anything. I assure you that I've spent more time in courtrooms than you and your heroine combined. What matters is what it accomplishes. Her evidence has accomplished nothing. Stop throwing around words like "censorship" and repeating this cut and paste arguement about "she's the only one who filed evidence". It makes you look like a true believer and detracts from any discussion of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Judy Wood Notability

Isn't this a notable secondary source though?

Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on the very popular radio show, 'We Ourselves', hosted by Ambrose Lane. The radio station is WPFW 89.3 - Washington, D.C. The interview is all over the internet, but a direct link to it is here: http://www.weourselves.org/wpfw/052308.html

Please let me know. Thank you.

'''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out on someone else's talk page, where you spammed this request:

It's not clear it's a notable talk show, and
It's not at all clear the show has a reputation for fact-checking.

Without both, it's only a reliable primary source for what Dr. Wood actually said, if that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to fact-check the fact that Dr. Wood's case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

That has nothing to do with it, nor is it notable. Anyone can appeal their case to the Supreme Court (technically, request Supreme Court review, as an actual appeal to the Supreme Court can only be done on certain Constitutionally specified cases). The Court let the Appealate Court decision (that there was no case) stand, with no dissenting justices. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anyone can try to appeal their case, but not all cases get appealed, in fact, very few cases get appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, because the Supreme Court only takes on the biggest and most important cases. In this scenario, her case was so solid and so backed by evidence, that it made it ALL THE WAY to the SUPREME COURT.

To say that the only 9/11 research efforts ever to be filed in a court of law and make it to the Supreme Court are not notable, makes me question your integrity as a person. Amazing.

'''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)

Ahem. The Supreme Court did not "take the case". In fact, the Appealate Court ruled there was no potential case, and the Supreme Court did not hear the "appeal". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a motion to dismiss by the defendents at the level of Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court upheld that motion. The case was dismissed at the level of the Supreme Court, regardless of whether or not the case was actually heard. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(cite)?. My recollection is that Appealate court accepted the motion to dismiss (or, possibly, rejected Federal jurisdiction against the defendants). If there was a Supreme Court order, I'd like to see a pointer to it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked on 4/10/2010

I did say that it was time to drop the stick, instead you are carrying ion precisely the same agitation at multiple venues. I have blocked you to prevent this disruption. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Blocking me simply for discussing this issue with 3 or 4 moderators on their private Talk Pages. Last time I checked, there is nothing wrong with discussing topics and asking questions. Now the story is complete. :)

As soon as I realized that this censorship was happening, seeing how certain administrators would not even let Dr. Wood's NAME be mentioned even ONCE on the 9/11 Truth Movement page, I started to take screen shots and document everything that was happening.

Thanks for showing me your agenda, and for providing me with ample evidence showing that there is indeed a small group of admins here that do not care to engage in rational discussion about Dr. Judy Wood, rather, they simply want to keep her name from appearing on 9/11-related Wikipedia pages. Thanks a bunch :) '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ROUGE: Administrators have been known to oppose editors because their edits violate policy, rather than because the admins are conspiring with the Forces of Darkness. And that, in a nutshell, is the root of one of your biggest problems. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you and a small group of others have blocked me from even discussing this with other people on their individual talk pages. Specifically, I was told to stop discussing a topic that is very important, and evidence-based.

I am not stating that because the article was deleted that folks are trying to censor this, I am stating what I am because people have prevented me from discussing it in addition to deleting it. The very fact that the only 9/11 researcher EVER to file her evidence with a court-of-law in pursuit of the truth is not mentioned on any 9/11 wikipedia pages is bullshit. My attempts to even add her name as a 9/11 researcher to the 9/11 Truth Movement were all deleted, and my attempts to discuss it on the 9/11 Truth Movement talk page, and on other administrators talk pages, all were blocked, which shows exactly what is going on. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, that's false. William Rodriguez apparently filed evidence in a lawsuit, although he now (personal correspondence) says that he was mislead into filing.

As for your block, I would be in favor of releasing it if you would restrict those of your comments which are plausible to the appropriate article talk page. Because of creativity in avoiding restrictions in the 9/11 area, I cannot draft a restriction that I would agree to, but it seems possible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what i understand, William Rodriguez filed his testimonies with the courts, not any scientific evidence. I should have clarified by stating hard / scientific evidence when I was referring to Dr. Wood's legal filings. For example, Dr. Steven Jones, a physicist, has not filed his nano-thermite study with Congress, with NIST, nor with the courts. In contrast, Dr. Wood has filed her evidence with the courts, and one of her cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court. This is one of the most notable accomplishments in all of 9/11 research, yet she is constantly censored. I am going to send you an email about this, because it is very important that I discuss it with you all. Thanks for your time. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I notice that I cannot find your email. If you would like to read a very well-organized email that is full of information on this topic, please let me know. My email address is [email protected], and I would love to share the email with you. I have compiled quite a bit of information that is relevant to this topic, and why it is so important that we continue to spread the word about this. Thanks for discussing this with me, and feel free to send me an email if you would like to discuss it more via email. I don't see this Wikipedia situation going anywhere, especially after reading the deletion review log from the original 2007 Judy Wood page. If that many "Keep" votes cannot at least get her name mentioned in one single 9/11 Wikipedia page, then my efforts alone surely will not have any luck. However, if you type "Dr. Judy Wood" into Google, you get over 7,000,000 hits. If you type 'Judy Wood 9 11' into Google, you get over 3,000,000 hits. She is very notable, but she also is the target of a large smear and censorship campaign. One of her students was murdered in 2006, and shortly after, she received a message stating "we did it once, and we will do it again if we have to". She has received other threats as well in an attempt to scare her into being silent about what she has discovered. Please le tme know if you want to discuss this more. Thank you. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I wanna be on your e-mail list. I need to test my spam filter. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was funny. I don't have an email list, but I do send out emails to people that I consider worthy and capable of doing something with the information I give them. Thanks for wasting precious moments of your life by stopping here solely to post a negative comment. Oh well, your call. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact you can't even get 9/11 conspiracists to buy into your theory should tell you something. Meanwhile, Rubin is trying to plead your case for you. What guarantee can you give that you will refrain from doing the stuff that got you blocked, and not make him look like a fool for defending you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. You (AHR) can't find my E-mail? Why not? William Rodriguez did. How do you think I got his personal correspondence? (I hereby state that, if you find my E-mail, you may use it, as long as you respect my request to stop using it if I also do that.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, could you verify that Judy's "testimony" was accepted by (a) court as being expert? My recollection is that the trial court rejected her "evidence", but allowed the suit to go forward, while the appellate court rejected the basis of the lawsuit. Hence, in the eyes of the law, Woods and Rodriguez were equivalent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filing a suit does not confer notability. Any Tom, Dick or Judy can file a suit. I could file a suit against the Chicago Cubs for having impersonated a major league baseball team for the last century. That wouldn't make me notable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to waste any minutes of my life on you Bugs. I saw you make fun of Arthur simply for voting Neutral in regards to my block. You are what I refer to as a "troll", one that does not engage in neutral, rational discussion, rather, smears, slanders, criticizes, or mocks. You mocking Arthur simply for voting Neutral renders you unworthy of my time. Good day.

By the way, forget the email, I will just post the information here in case anyone wants to review it for themselves. Reviewing evidence is important, so please do not form an opinion on this subject without at least first considering the evidence I have posted below. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, you gave me the information I wanted. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a win-win then. Please stop posting on my talk page. I am asking nicely, but if you continue to do so, I will be forced to report you as being disruptive, since you are not contributing anything useful but negative comments to my talk page. Thank you. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to be Unblocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pookzta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I posted evidence-based questions on no more than 5 users talk pages to discuss why certain content related to Dr. Judy Wood was being deleted so vigorously. I was not being disruptive, I was using proper grammar, I was being respectful and mature, I was not using all capital letters, I was camly, maturely, and rationally discussing and questioning the content deletion by messaging a small group of individual users and moderators about the subject. The Deletion Review page was closed prematurely, as I was told it would remain open for discussion for 7 days, but it was closed in under 48 hours. Then, I was told to try discussing it on the 9/11 Truth Movement talk page, but that discussion was closed as well by a different user, with a reference noted that I should see the Judy Wood deletion review page for the reasons as to why I was not being allowed to discuss Judy Wood on the 9/11 Truth Movement talk page. So, after being prohibted from discussing the deleted Judy Wood content on both the 9/11 Truth Movement talk page and on the prematurely-closed Deletion Review page, I concluded that I should message a small number of individual users on their talk pages to see what they thought about certain sources, and to see if they thought there was any chance I could get this important information posted. Now, I have been blocked indefinitely simply for discussing this issue maturely on approximately 5 different users' talk pages. This is unfair in my honest opinion.

Decline reason:

You have repeatedly shown that you steadfastly refuse to accept community consensus. There is a limit to how many appeals you can make; you exceeded that limit some time ago, and with it, the patience of other editors. You have no inherent right to edit here; as I see it, you refuse to conform to our standards and thus were shown the door. Tan | 39 16:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pookzta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not think an indefinite block is necessary for the mistakes I made within a 24 hour period. I think a temporary block of some kind is far more justified. How is a permanent block justified? I learned a lot in my first 24 hours of trying to add content here, especially considering that at the start of it all, I didn't even know how to properly sign text I posted. I can assure you that I will not be attempting to recreate a Dr. Judy Wood page, but I would like to have the opportunity to discuss why I think her name should be mentioned on certain 9/11 research pages. I am very new here, and I do admit that I was very aggressive in my attempts to get this information posted successfully on Wikipedia, but after seeing a concensus in the Deletion Review page, I can assure you that I am not going to continue to try and create a 'Judy Wood' page. Still though, feel like I should have the privelage of being able to discuss why I think she should be mentioned on various 9/11 Truth-related pages. I don't see anything wrong with this, as long as I do not violate any rules. Please consider this, and if you still feel like I should not be able to post, then that is fine. Thank you for considering.

Decline reason:

When Guy blocked you, he said, I did say that it was time to drop the stick, instead you are carrying ion precisely the same agitation at multiple venues. I have blocked you to prevent this disruption. Do you not see that [I] feel like I should have the privelage of being able to discuss why I think she should be mentioned on various 9/11 Truth-related pages is the exact problem? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pookzta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So you are saying that I am not allowed to discuss a certain topic, even on the appropriate talk page? I don't care if Guy said drop the stick or not, prohibiting me from discussing something, as long as it is in the right place, is called CENSORSHIP. I can understand if he doesn't want me creating a Judy Wood page, or adding her name to other pages, but how can one state that I am not allowed to discuss a certain topic in an appropriate setting? I am requesting that my block be set to some minimal temporary time frame, rather than remain indefinite. I am very concerned that I am being prohibited from discussing topics. I understand I am not supposed to discuss them in certain places now, and that I should not create pages without first discussing them, but I should not be prxohibited from discussing this topic as long as I do it in the right setting, such as on a 9/11 Truth talk page. Since that is an appropriate setting, I should be allowed to discuss it there. Don't you agree?

Decline reason:

The answer to that is a clear no. There is no where on Wikipedia where you can discuss an article's topic. You can discuss improving the article, by all means, but all discussion must be directed to the article, ie its sources, formatting, content, keeping it NPOV, etc. But you can't discuss topics because Wikipedia is not a forum. Nor is it a venue for the promotion of ideas or individuals, and your insistence on doing that has led you to being blocked. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Advice

"Indefinite" does not mean "infinite" (read WP:BLOCK. You have been overly aggressive, and have wasted a lot of people's time (including your own) due to this behaviour.

Read the guide to appealing blocks.
Understand that Wikipedia is not about the WP:TRUTH and that not all subjects deserve an article.
Understand reliable sources and what is and isn't one.
Understand original research.
Understand WP:BATTLEGROUND.
Understand WP:SOAP
Understand WP:SPIDERMAN
Finally, understand WP:DISRUPT.

Let us know in a few days or so how this all will apply to you and your future on Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User disabled from editing own talk page

I have removed Pookzta's access to this page due to persistent unblock requests. Any administrator can feel free to return this access if they feel it is appropriate. Tan | 39 17:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the user's access to this talk page. I hope that they have read the applicable links, and especially Dougweller's comment. Articles are not censored here but user's comments certainly are, in these cases, because as Dougweller said, this is not a forum for you to espouse your ideas and opinions. If you are here to help build an encyclopedia, great. If you are here to push your opinion, you are not welcome. We are not a government entity, and you have no inherent right to edit here. Tan | 39 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soapboxing removed

I have removed some text, which in my view was a serious violation of WP:NOTSOAP, from this page. Seasoned and neutral editors are welcome to revert this if I am being too heavy-handed, but I feel that having a user talk page starting with "Dear Fellow 9/11 Truth Supporter" amounts to using Wikipedia as a soapbox. I have also removed the text from the Judy Wood DRV which Pookzta had pasted into this page. --bonadea contributions talk 18:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the same text again. User seems to have duplicated their effort. All actual discussions that have taken place on this page remain. --bonadea contributions talk 18:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and other things

I am here because I found some notes from you on my talk page after having been out enjoying the nice weather all day. I see you are now blocked. It's unfortunate it had to come to that, and you may possibly be unblocked in the future, but it's important you take this time to read and understand some core policies. WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. Also, it is critical you read and understand WP:NPOV, WP:TRUTH and WP:SOAP. In order for any kind of article to be written, ESPECIALLY a biography of a living person (se also WP:BLP, multiple reliable third-party sources MUST be presented that substantiate the statements made in the article. I see the concept of the reliable secondary source has been explained to you. To simplify, we must have articles written in mainstream newspapers (for example, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Guardian), or something presented objectively on a significant news programme with a reputation for fact checking (examples: BBC, NBC), something published in scholarly journals, a book written about the subject by a third party, etc. Primary sources can be used to clarify certain facts about someone (for example, what school they attended or similar factoids) but they cannot be used to establish notability. Documents files by the subject with courts or law enforcement agencies are also primary since she (or her designated legal counsel) are the ones who wrote them. I have helped others write articles in the past and I'm willing to help you produce an objective, NPOV article but only on subjects that satisfy our policies and guidelines. If you would like to revisit this particular topic and still believe she is notable, please take some time to find as many reliable, third-party references as possible, wait a month or two, politely request an unblock with an explicit statement that you have read and understand our policies and guidelines, and will agree to abide by them. In the event you do your homework and successfully request an unblock, I'll do what I can to work on your article with you, again, provided, the subject satisfies policies and guidelines. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is really good advice. I supported the block levied against this account for the simple reason that your activities were definitely disruptive. You were tying up several pages with threads that were varying mixes of: large blocks of cut & paste text, malformed requests in improper fora, demanding and sometimes accusatory in tone, and generally naïve of Wikipedia policies/guidelines/etiquette. Now noobie mistakes happen and one may not be completely at fault when unfamiliar with the local ordinances, so I think it's possible for a second chance to be granted. You do need to realize that the rate at which you were posting the various items that broadly annoyed the community was part of the problem: several of us were trying to offer advice to help you make the proper case in the right location to affect the content you wanted to alter. Whether accurate or not, your behavior didn't seem to show that you were "listening" to the suggestions and objections people were making, projecting an image of an editor on a mission to Right Great Wrongs. If you want to return, you should be sure you're familiar with the links Multixfer provided above. Another unblock request over the next few days may be successful if you acknowledge the disruption you caused (even if it wasn't your intent to cause disruption) and your familiarity with the policies and guidelines that were cited to you as reasons you couldn't do everything you were trying to do. Finally, make sure your future additions to Wikipedia can attributed directly to generally acceptable reliable sources. If you ever have a question about whether a particular source is appropriate to support a particular claim, you should definitely bring it up on the relevant article's talk pgae or at the reliable sources noticeboard, which is a reference are that helps editors vet proposed sourcing. Good luck, — Scientizzle 16:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access

Tanthalas39 has restored your ability to edit this talk page. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)

Still Blocked From Editing

I recently tried to add some medical information to the Indolamine Dioxygenase (IDO) page and realized I am still blocked. Amazing. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are still blocked. An unblock request that clearly indicates that you have understood the issues that precipitated your block (explained in several ways on this page) and will seek to avoid further disruption may very well be successful. — Scientizzle 14:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several legitimate unblock requests. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should try again taking into the advice of the declining admins. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I take advice when my account is locked? I don't even have the opportunity to act on their advice as long as my account is locked. I am not going to write an essay detailing what "lessons I have learned", because this is not school. Am I going to get a second chance at being a 'non-disruptive' editor, or will they just leave my account locked? Time will tell. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pookzta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think I have had my account locked for plenty long. I do not even want to try to edit Wikipedia's "9/11 Truth Movement" page because obviously there is quite a bit of controversy surrounding Wikipedia's handling of that topic, and I do not want to be involved in it. I would though, like to use my medical knowledge to add details to various medical articles that do not have enough detail.

Decline reason:

I was hoping we would be able to arrive at a voluntary agreement that you would avoid the areas where you have had such trouble, because it seems obvious you are not able to work in those areas without letting your own feelings cloud your judgement. Given your replies below and your blaming of others for your past problems, an unblock does not seem to be in Wikipedia's best interest at this time. Perhaps consider the standard offer and try again in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm considering handing out some rope and seeing where this leads, but you need to understand that there are a finite number of last chances. If you are truly willing to let go of your previous conflicts that led up to this block, then you can be welcomed back into the community. If instead you continue in the same manner as before, you can expect to be rapidly re-blocked and it will be extremely unlikely to be lifted anytime in the near future. Before unblocking you I will ask for comment from the blocking administrator, and anyone else who is watching this page is free to add further comment as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I will not be doing any editing of 9/11 Truth Movement pages without moderator approval. I may start a discussion on the Talk page of one of them to see what others think about a proposed edit, but it is not worth the risk to me to apply the edits without getting moderator approval first. I am OK with the fact that Wikipedia censors things, and a perfect example of this was an article I saw today that had NO REFERENCES. Literally, an entire page devoted to a subject without one single reference. This type of stuff bothers me, because the whole Dr. Judy Wood thing had many references, many which were valid according to the policies I read, but my point here is, I am learning to be OK with the errors of Wikipedia, especially those related to non-mainstream stuff like 9/11 Truth Movement pages and what not. Wikipedia is far from perfect, so the least I can do is improve medical articles that I read and find errors or inaccuracies in, and the worse you will see from me is creating a talk page discussion about a 9/11-related topic in hopes of getting moderator input and possibly approval for an edit. I am done editing Wikipedia 9/11 Truth pages without moderator approval, because I realize that it is a very unimportant part of my 9/11 Truth activism. I would rather contribute productively to medical and science articles than not contribute at all, and again, I will not make any 9/11-related edits without first seeking moderator input and approval. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extent to which you pursued this, and your repeated failure above to understand the problem, I will not support any unblock unless it is accompanied by an unambiguous ban on articles and discussion related to 9/11 and / or Judy Wood. What you've said above basically reads as an acknowledgement that you intend to start further discussions in the hope of persuading someone to let you take it further. The answer to that is a resounding "no". We have had years of problems with people pushing the truther agenda, which is of course WP:TRUTH not truth, and we don't need the input of people who cannot understand why we don't want any more of it. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is not my primary intentions, not in the least, of requesting this unban, it is fairly ridiculous to think that you are only willing to unblock my account if I refuse to discuss certain topics. I was told by numerous people that I could at least discuss this with others so that they could help me to determine what sources are "credible" and "notable" and other details. I am pledging to not edit 9/11-related pages without moderator approval, which is a genuine promise. Please do not let your bias regarding 9/11 get in the way of being an admin of an encylopedia. Regardless of whether you support the 9/11 Truth Movement, the fact of the matter is, there is an enormous, international, rapidly-growing 9/11 Truth Movement, and that is why you have a Wikipedia page devoted to the "9/11 Truth Movement". I am not here to push my "truther" beliefs, but I am here to help edit medical and scientific articles, while discussing 9/11-related issues with other moderators to see what they think on the side, and to learn what is acceptable for sources and what not. You can unblock me or not, the choice is obviously yours, but I think it is fairly obvious that you let your personal beliefs get in the way of what should be a professional job as a Wikipedia admin. Me discussing issues concerning the Wikipedia '9/11 Truth Movement' page, and other related pages, should be fair game, because you have these aricles on Wikipedia and they are articles that I would like to discuss with those who edit them. Although 9/11-related activities are no where near my priority for this unblock request, I think it is still unfair that you feel like you have to "shut me up" on certain issues. This is unprofessional, and it is an abuse of your power in my honest opinion. Set aside your personal beliefs, grudges, and disagreements, and be a professional admin. I should be allowed to discuss things on talk pages with other users, especially if I am being rational, mature, and constructive, in my discussing. Plus, I am a medical student that could contribute quite a bit of details to medical and science articles, which I notice are lacking. Your call. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty simple. We don't think you are capable of dropping the stick and stopping your disruptive editing, and everything you post here confirms that view. We have more than enough battles to be going on with, thanks all the same. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]