Preservefreedom

Welcome!

Hello, Preservefreedom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

7 World Trade Center

Regarding your recent edits, all of which have been reverted by another editor.

I think you need to look at some realities regarding how many people are taking your edits.

First, the tone in which they are written (starting off with: "The only problem with FEMA's findings ...") appear to be non-NPOV. It very much gives the impression of saying "everything you just read is wrong, and here is the truth." That is inherently non-NPOV. This may not be quite what you mean, but this is a way it can be interpreted.

Second, despite a lengthy commentary, there is only one citation. I went to the website, and found that it was a commercial site selling videos and articles from a single point of view. This would pretty much mean that this is not a reliable third party when it comes to verifying the claims. The party in question may be correct in everything they say, but from the standpoint of research, I don't know any researcher who would claim this source as "research reliable".

I can very much appreciate that your point of view is different from many editors. However, I would suggest that further edits like this will likely be reverted by other editors, unless you find a way to change your approach. I understand that mainstream media may not have any articles that support your view, but you will need to find some neutral, reliable source that has information you can use to support your statements.

Just think about it ...... I wish you good tidings. LonelyBeacon 03:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem .... I help where I can. Most editors that I encounter really are interested in making sure that the articles get as good as they can. I strongly urge you to read that section at the top of this page, especially the "Five Pillars" and the "How to write a great article". I also copied over a section that discusses neutral point of view as defined around here. It might help to guide you when you are looking for sources.

The best way to learn is to look around .... find good articles and see how they were edited. If you see something cool, go to "edit page", and copy the format that was used.

Most importantly, don't be discouraged if someone comes around and deletes what you add. You might ask them why. There might be a good reason. There might not be, and you should try and talk it out. There is a civility code here that editors are supposed to adhere to.

Best of luck! LonelyBeacon 04:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Movement to impeach George W. Bush

With further research, I have found that the list which you have twice placed in this article was lifted directly off of another website.[1] This is a reminder that doing so is a violation of copyright law, and any such content posted in the future will be deleted outright in accordance with standing policy. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 08:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Source for the section in "Movement to impeach George W. Bush"

Oh I know it was, it's on a lot of websites, the information is freely distributed. I won't be putting it back on that article, because another person made a good point why it shouldn't be there. It's because it is more like regular evidence, rather than a direct impeachable offense. It may be on a different wikipedia article, but one that it fits with better. Preservefreedom (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

alternative fuel

Hey, I read your talk page, coming here viavia from the Talk:9/11 page where I'm pretty active.

I am very interested in alternative fuels, especially in claims of free energy. I am looking into Joe Cells and GEET Processor applications. Don't know 100% yet whether they are really real. Also, there is a compressed-air car which looks great. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)