CIC7

Welcome!

Hello, CIC7, 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 and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• 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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! DS (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning

The material you are edit warring to include at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories fails three core content policies - WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I appreciate you are new, but if you continue to edit war to include this material I, or someone else I am sure, will request admin action to be taken against you. I recommend you restrict yourself to posting suggestions on how the article should be improved at Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, ideally by posting a proposed draft for discussion. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Who was behind the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Thank you. I intend to address the issues that you all raise. CIC7 (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

William L. Uanna

Your edits to this article were not constructive and have been reverted. In particular, you should not remove a tag concerning an absence of references, of which this article has none. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

{{unblock| reason=Requesting an IP address block exemption, because (I started this page. It is about my father. My name is Steven Uanna. I recently had my Email address hijacked. I now have a new Email address that I can provide).CIC7 (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Afraid I don't have enough experience with rangeblocks to assist you. When you attempt to use Wikipedia, are instructions given as to how to overcome it?

You may want to read through WP:COI, which deals with contributions by persons connected to the subject of an article. I understand your interest, but remember that Wikipedia relies exclusively upon secondary sources that meet strict criteria. It's not a very good outlet for original research and less conventional sources. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, your post to the Talk:William L. Uanna says that you have had some difficulty making uploads. If I understand you correctly, you seems to have had that problem at Wikimedia Commons. Unfortunately I don't have any experience with Commons and don't know how that works. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: if you have any family photographs of your father, and can prove the family connection via the OTRS system, it would be great if you could upload one for the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Steven. We have talked before concerning the article on your father, see above. Sources, particularly on controversial facts, must meet the standards in WP:V. That's why I was forced to revert you on that. I'm afraid a Youtube video and the material you cite, such as your personal experiences, are insufficient. The video does not rise to the level of a source of sufficient quality that we can use it for an article on your father, and your personal statements are unverifiable. I am accepting on good faith your assertions concerning the family relationship, but we cannot include personal account in Wikipedia even if verified, which yours is not. The purpose is to maintain high quality in biographical articles. If you remain convinced you have grounds to add this material, even after reading WP:V, the next step should probably be for you or I to raise the issue with an administrator or on a noticeboard, or in a Request for Comment that I would be happy to initiate. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Figureofnine, the movie Enola Gay in which my father William Lewis Uanna was portrayed by Stephen Macht was based on the book by Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan Witts - they did considerable research for it. And Via Com did additional research. The statement at the end of the movie was provided to Via Com by Paul Tibbetts who was a paid consultant to the movie. But, if the statement is true or not, the fact remains that it was at the end of the movie. As far as my experience through the years with my mother telling me that she had suspicions that my father's death was not from natural causes, (heart attack) - that is what I am saying. Also a factual statement. Neither I nor my mother gave the information to Via Com. They acquired it on their own - my mother and I were surprised to see it at the end of the movie. That is all that I am saying. I say what I say - the movie says what it says. You want of say we are both - what? Again, I say what I say - the movie makes a statement. And...?CIC7 (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a Youtube video and your personal knowledge, unverifiable, doesn't even come close. I've pointed you to the relevant policy multiple times and you've ignored it. I have raised the issue at WP:ANI. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I came across the issues that have been raised on this article after Figureofnine posted it on ANI. As they've repeated told, you Wikipedia has some rather strict requirements when it comes to sourcing. This is covered in quite a lot of detail on the guideline on reliable sourcing, which I highly recommend you read. Without saying, you would consider what you are saying is reliable and truth, however, Wikipedia's consideration of reliability is not about the trustworthiness of a person or a source. It is about fact checking and editorial oversight, processes that are done by various news and media outlets, but are not just limited to these sources. As for verifiability, your arguments become circular as to verify that the statements that you source to yourself, you would of course answer to the affirmative. However, you would not be able to provide any notion of fact checking and as such the verifiability of your material becomes questionable. This link will explain in great detail how verifiability is defined on Wikipedia and will also explain why your material could not possibly be included in the article on your father. Now as for the book you mentioned, it would be worth providing the title and publisher of that book and taking it to the reliable sources noticeboard where a number of veteran editors can provide feedback on its appropriateness as a source.

Please keep foremost in mind two points. Firstly, at no point are you being accused of lying or falsifying information to further your agenda. It is simply that if anyone were permitted to include material based on themselves as a source, then many articles would be little more than a collection of opinion pieces and gossip. Secondly, no one here is deliberately impeding you from entering information to an article out of malice. Blackmane (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

We should probably be discussing this content issue on the article talk page rather than here on user talk. However, I think that the hosting location of that video (i.e. Youtube) is a red herring and the video's reliability (or lack thereof) derives from the research and verification that originally went into it. So if it's a serious documentary (I don't know if it is) then I'd say we can use it. Also, per NPOV, we are supposed to document relevant viewpoints in the article whether or not we think the viewpoints are factual. As a neutral reader (I've never heard of the subject before) I do see the murder theory as potentially relevant to the biography, given where it's coming from. I see by web search that Steven Uanna has some forum posts where he goes into it in more detail. Steven, have you given any press interviews or anything like that? If your viewpoint been noted by an independent outlet that's not too fringey, then we can cite that and I'd support doing so. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This will be the tricky part, finding suitable sources that aren't self published, or user generated material, the very reason why things like most blogs, FB, YouTube are generally considered unreliable. The last point from the IP is most pertinent. WP:FRINGE would be well worth reading as well. Blackmane (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Flickr

Don't forget to upload your image collection to Flickr. An account is free and they store a terabyte for you. That way what may get deleted here in 10, 20 or 100 years is backed up elsewhere. I also added him to Familysearch, you need a free account to edit, but you can add your photos and you can add in other documents you have. You can attach internal documents to his records such as the census. I attached his birth record already. Here he is: https://familysearch.org/tree/#view=ancestor&person=LJNG-YXY

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

William L. Uanna

I belatedly noticed that you added material to this article in February that falls far short of our standards. 1. There was a reference to the circumstances of Uanna's death, taken from the epilogue of a documentary of unknown reliability. We cannot report such extraordinary claims (murder) without ample sourcing. Secondly there are claims made about his post-war career that are original research. I've already stated above, a while back, the standards of sourcing. Unless such reliable secondary sourcing is available, we cannot add such material. If we allowed it, anyone could come in and say the exact opposite, or make lurid and false claims. That is why we require verifiability. Please cooperate. Thanks very much. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William L. Uanna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atomic Energy Commission. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your oversight and I did not know I did that. I am still learning how to edit and I am ashamed to say that I do not know how at this point to correct the "Did you mean..." link. I want the article to be the best it can be and if the link makes it less than professionally written... but, as I said I am still learning and if leaving it could help in linking up something, then leave it. I'm sorry, I need to do some more research on editing, "links" etc. If I try to remove it without knowing exactly how I might do more harm than good. I will do some reading on it. Thank you. CIC7 (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Bud Uanna

Bud Uanna is a fascinating guy, and gets more interesting each time you add more material to the article. When doing so, please bear this in mind:

1. I know who you are and that you're not making it up, but other people don't know that. Each paragraph needs to have references supporting the facts contained therein. The reference has to support everything before it up to the previous reference.
2. Any quotes need to be immediately followed by a reference
3. The lead needs no references because it is just a summary of the article. But everything in it needs to be in the article, with a reference. (The same goes for the infobox)

At the moment, the second paragraph in "Early life" and the second last in Post-war need references. Let me know if you need any help with this. Cheers! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Yes. Can you be more specific. The first few words of the paragraphs you are concerned about. I can verify everything I say in the article. Some things my mother said, she was called to the embassy and was with my father when he died. I have my father's personal papers, FOIA documents, and many more newspaper articles and photographs than I have posted on the internet. I have tried to be as accurate as I can and there is much more that I would like to say. The Department of State denied me any information about the time my father was in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The statement at the end of the movie ENOLA GAY says that all documents relating to his death have disappeared. Disappeared or withheld, at this point it does not make much difference. But it may at some point. What the State Department knows may be what I put on the internet. I feel that they may be called to account for what happened in Addis Ababa the day he died. If in fact they have destroyed the record all they know is what I say. Here is something to think about, the man who was in charge of security at the time of my father's death was William Boswell. His son, Eric Boswell was in charge of Diplomatic Security at the time of the recent Benghazi Consulate destruction when Ambassador Christopher Stevens was murdered. Also, the Air Attache in Addis Ababa, whose office my father died in, was Werner G. Goering. He is the nephew of Hermann Goring, leading member of the Nazi party and commander in chief of the Luftwaffe. You can read about him in a book called HELL ABOVE EARTH. There is a lot more to my father's career and his death that I would like to say. Like what I think was going on behind the scenes in Addis Ababa at the time involving the coup against Haile Selassie in December, 1960. I will support everything I say but I need to study up on how to put it into the Wikipedia page as a reference. Any help you can give me I would appreciate. I lived with this story from the time we returned from Addis. The State Department had my mother convinced that her benefits from my father's retirement were precarious. Something that always amazed me but she was convinced of it. And she insisted that we had been declared Persona non Grata after my father died and officials from the embassy came into our house, took down our Christmas tree and told her we had to leave the next day - Saturday, December 23, 1961. She refused so we left on the next flight out of Addis on Tuesday, the 26th, the day after Christmas. So although some things don't make sense and are what I got from my mother, although they do not seem to make sense now they may at some time in the, I hope, near future. I am not making anything up. I am trying to be as honest as I can. I don't have enough imagination to make up my father's career and all the things it touches upon. I appreciate all the help I have been given. Thank you, Steven Uanna CIC7 (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Let's look at the second paragraph in the Early life section:

During the years 1938 to 1942 he attended Suffolk University graduating in 1942 with an L.L.B. He passed the Massachusetts Bar examination and would later be admitted to practice before the Federal Bar. In his November 19, 1956 Foreign Service Essay he describes this time as "...a most difficult one as the demands of my position caused me to miss many of my classes". He goes on to describe how it was while attending law school and working as a construction superintendent that he became aware of the necessity of management and administration. He purchased the seven volume set of books published by the International City Managers Association, read them several times and became an Associate Member of the ICMA in 1940. In the early 1950s Uanna attended American University in Washington, D.C. and needed to submit his thesis to receive a Doctorate in Public Administration. It was his schedule at a job he was to take at the U.S. Department of State that kept him from finishing his thesis.

1. Reference for attending Suffolk University. That he got his LLB from Suffolk is covered by footnote 5 (The New York Times article), so that could be added to the end of the sentence, but it doesn't give the dates.
2. Passed bar exam. Again, footnote 5 covers passing the bar exam, but doesn't mention the Federal bar.
3. Direct quote needs a source. Do we have a copy of his November 19, 1956 Foreign Service Essay essay anywhere?

I know you're not making it up. We just need to provide the sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. There are a number of documents that I think you will be interested in at Wikimedia Commons under Category:Bud Uanna. There is a link to it on the William L. Uanna Wikipedia page at the External Links section. His Foreign Service Essay is there and specifics about his time at Suffolk Law School is described at State Department Bona Fides Employment Background p.1.jpg. Some of the pictures promote my theory about the Kennedy Assassination and should be viewed as such, my theory. It is difficult for me not to tie my father into it, or perhaps I should say that I think the people behind it certainly would not want him around when they pulled it off. One document, near the bottom, is from U. E. Baughman the Chief of the U.S. Secret Service thanking my father and other State Department agents for help in the protection of President Eisenhower. And there are 2 documents from Sheffield Edwards the Chief of Security for the CIA. One thanking my father and other State Department agents for their help in presenting a Russian defector to the public and another wishing him well on his tour in Ethiopia. The second one mentions the "Special Group." It was also known as the 40 Committee and the 303 Committee. It was the section of the National Security Council that dealt with covert action. And operated so that covert action could be taken that the President could deny. Sheffield Edwards is known among Kennedy assassination researchers for soliciting the Mafia to kill Fidel Castro. My father's job was to protect foreign heads of state. My father was not new to the secrecy game. In the Manhattan Project he knew more than most about the Atomic Bomb and the secret was so well hidden that after the death of President Roosevelt, President Truman did not know about the A Bomb until days after he was sworn in office. Secretary of War Stimson told him. And Truman had been in charge of a committee that oversaw war plant production during the war. The point I am making is about keeping secrets. Secrets to what purpose. Classification to what purpose. My father was involved with secrecy before WWII. But he was not one who would have given a blanket protection of "National Security" as an excuse to keeps secrets, secrets kept not from our enemies but from the American public. So please give me some leeway on my theory about the Assassination of President Kennedy. One other thing. You may have seen the New York Mirror front page that shows my father on the running board of the limo following Queen Elizabeth. That position in the security detail is called Half Back. That was my father's position at Tufts College in football. Secret Service Agent Clint Hill was in this position when President Kennedy was assassinated and he jumped off the running board and mounted the rear of the Presidential limo, barely. He put Mrs. Kennedy, who had climbed on to the trunk, back into the rear seat. I have posted some of my theories. But, I think you will find the documents and pictures specifically about my father interesting and thank you so much for your help. CIC7 (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

That's great. The article is now fine down to that second-last paragraph. We need sources for the following claims:

1. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents released about Uanna describe him as "brilliant" and having a "keen mind" and that he was not only appreciated for his abilities but he was pleasant to deal and work with. Which documents?
2. His diplomatic security responsibilities required him to work with many foreign security services. His private files reveal that he was especially close with the security services of Britain and France.
3. A Full Field Investigation done by the FBI for the Atomic Energy Commission and completed on 3/31/47 would be a good example of what most of his superiors and fellow workers would say about him throughout his career. In the "Synopsis of Facts" it states "Employee regarded as loyal, capable and of unimpeachable honesty and integrity by references". The investigation is signed by Guy Hottel, the Special Agent in Charge of the Washington, D. C. FBI office.
4. one piece of advice his mother gave his new bride Bonnie shortly after they were married in 1948 was "Keep him out of the sun, he turns black."
5. Eligible for retirement from the government he had six months left on his tour of duty in Ethiopia when he died.

Also: do we have anything about where and when he was married? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. "Brilliant" - this is the cover sheet of the FBI document that is on Category:Bud Uanna. It is heavily redacted and the individual interviewed said that he would "go overboard" for Uanna. This is the document that is signed by Guy Hottel. The "keen mind" reference is from the Department of State document. There are 2 performance reviews on Category:Bud Uanna. It is one of them. You can recognize they by their yellowish tint. A State Department document written by Otto Otepka says the he was extremely well liked by everyone during his 90 day temporary assignment at State. Although Otepka seems to be taking credit for recognizing my father's abilities he does not mention him once in his book The Ordeal of Otto Otepka. Leslie Groves does mention him in Now it Can Be Told. Neither does Kenneth Nichols in The Road to Trinity. These three are put forth as experts. The claim is made that Otepka "wrote the book" on security at the Department of State. In actuality my father "wrote the book" in Otepka's Evaluations Division. "Foreign Security Services" - again Category:Bud Uanna. There is a document there from the French security in which their security chief calls my father friend and ends with something in French. It appears to be some kind of invitation the best I can decipher. Also, not posted I have other documents. One refers to a book that my father was given by the head of Scotland Yard on English Gardens. "He Turns Black" - this is family folklore by my mother which I heard many times. "Retirement" - He started in the Government in 1941 and you could retire then after 20 years. And I have a letter from my father to his mother 1 week before he died stating that he was thinking about retiring. It mentioned me finishing the school year in Addis and that he felt confident that he could get a job bringing in ten thousand dollars a year to supplement his retirement. He also said that there was the possibility of another posting to Calcutta, India if he wished to stay in the Foreign Service. Thanks. CIC7 (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes. Their marriage. I have a copy of the license. I will check it. I think they were married in Washington, D.C. I think reference is made to the date on one of his employment applications around that time and it is posted on Category:Bud Uanna. CIC7 (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Simple: you're edit warring over original research. We've been over this all before and we are deep into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Even if it wasn't original research, it is borderline puffery and trivia. Thirdly, you have a declared conflict of interest and should not be editing the article. Please self-revert. I brought this to to the article talk page[1] and you ignored it. Enough already. My patience with you is exhausted. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Though you are temporarily blocked, I wish for you to monitor and take part in the AN/I discussion about your conduct. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi CIC7. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. I just want to make sure you understand how we manage COI here.

You have declared that you are the son of Bud Uanna multiple times here. Per the WP:COI guideline, this means you have a COI in Wikipedia. Please do read WP:COI if you never have.

But here is the deal.

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do.

Disclosure is the most important, and first step, which you have done.

The second is step is a form of "peer review". This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and viola there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. (In this case, your feelings about your dad). If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft, disclose your COI on the Talk page using the appropriate template, and then submit the draft article through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function which flags your proposal so that others will pay attention. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page at Talk:William L. Uanna - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies.

I hope that makes sense to you.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on the article about your dad, or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

copied here, from message left at my user page here Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Yes I intend to appeal the ban imposed upon me for editing William Lewis Uanna, I am his son Steven Uanna. I am in the process of reviewing all the information sent to me. Certainly, I have a bias. But I have hundreds of photos and newspaper articles and FOIA documents and personal papers to share. He certainly was a part of history. I only intend to portray Bud Uanna as the whole man. Warts and all. I am convinced the whole story, his height 5 foot 5 inches yet excelling in football, his complexion - "dark skinned Italian" in Washington, D.C, in the 50's and more. Boston accent, after all he grew up in Medford.? Murdered - the statement at the end of the Movie ENOLA GAY? Did that happen or not? That means nothing? Your thoughts would be appreciated. CIC7 (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi CIC7, you are not under a topic ban. What I am talking about above, is the concept of conflict of interest, and our process for managing conflict of interest. Please do let me know if - did you read the COI guideline I linked above? Thanks! And please do reply here, to keep the thread together. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Is my situation "Writing about myself, family or friends" ? It looks like many of my entries have been undone. To begin with the reference from the movie ENOLA GAY about my father being murdered. And the article in the Boston Sunday Post about my father being "A tiny mite, but dynamite too" both are verifiable. Can someone just say the first is not to be included because they don't think the movie had the brains to say that or the second is - I can't remember what they exactly said, the football article is just so much fluff. Tell me, will I have to justify everything I have put in. That's OK. I will. I am trying to make him human and it seems to me some may not want anything but bare facts. You have a lot more experience with this. Please bear with me. Who decides at Wikipedia? He is my father and obviously I am biased but I did not really know the extent of his career until I filed the FOIA requests. He was a part of history and if I am allowed to put in his personality with the things he did and I probably won't be able to do this but the time he lived in too - he knew about the Atomic Bomb when President Truman did not learn about it until days after he was sworn in. He had a unique personality and very high intellect. Does that matter. Excuse me but it seems that some are intent on dehumanizing him. Just the facts. I will do what ever is necessary to make him human, the unique person he was. Of course you all can decide. To me it comes down to intent. What do I intend and what do those who do not want the personal details about my father to come out intend. Specifically - the reference to his murder and that he was a self made man. I don't think I should have to fight about that. The Nazis snuck into the United States through the Department of State, the 509th Composite Group/Roswell - UFO connection, the Kennedy assassination, I won't try to put them in. How do I get his personality and issues directly related to him in. What could it hurt to mention his Boston Accent? Please advise. CIC7 (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

So you opened well, and then derailed. Let's go just go step by step, simply. Will you please acknowledge that you have a conflict of interest in Wikipedia with regard to the article about your dad? Just a yes or no will do. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I do. CIC7 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for that. And does the process of managing COI that I described above, by welcoming content proposals from conflicted editors on the Talk page (instead of through direct editing by conflicted editors) make sense to you? Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I see. And the 24 hour block is a good idea because some things would probably be said that could be better phrased later. Maybe you can help me or guide me in this question - I will mention the issue with the statement at the end of the movie Enola Gay that my father was murdered but it also includes many other things other than that and are documented but were undone because individuals felt that they were not important. This bothers me because when the movie said that he was murdered it deeply effected me and many people that saw the movie - many of which called my mother. But now it can be undone because someone - who "apparently" has no connection to this issue or peripheral issues like political assassination says so. The murder statement was in the page for a good while. Now that I have been officially flagged with COI it is out. Can I get it back by COI or is there another process. Arbitration? I have wanted arbitration for a long time. It looks like someone cleaned house after the COI was directed. Do you all look at the individuals who undo articles as to their bias. I said "apparently" because part of my bias is that possibly some of these people fall into the category I call Warren Commission Apologists. CIC7 (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You know the process better than I do. I think I need mediation not arbitration? CIC7 (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I know you want to get to work on content but I just want for us each to be clear on what you are saying when you say "Yes I see". So you are agreeing to stop editing the article about your directly, and instead to propose changes on the Talk page. Is that accurate? Once we are both clear on that, I would be very happy to discuss your question about the content and the best way to go forward with dispute resolution. One step at a time! Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I will stop editing. And will propose changes on the Talk Page. You mean the William L. Uanna Talk Page - right? CIC7 (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I mean propose changes at the Talk:William L. Uanna page, yes. Great.

OK, now although you have been working in Wikipedia a long time, you don't see to be fully grounded in the relevant policies. Things will go much better if changes that you propose are solidly based on the policies. Can I quickly walk you through them? Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, also since you are going to be working on Talk pages a lot now, I want to be sure you understand "threading" because people expect that, and they get annoyed when others don't do it. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the Wikipedia software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. I hope that makes sense. You already have the "signing" thing down - that is the other thing people expect in Talk page discussions. OK, do let me know if I can walk you through the policies quickly. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Please do. CIC7 (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will do that in a new section down below, as this one has become long. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

How this place works

OK, so I would like to get you oriented to how Wikipedia works, so that what you propose on the Talk page has a reasonable chance of being accepted. There are some non-intuitive things about editing here, that I can zip through ~pretty~ quickly....

The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with encyclopedia articles that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via loads of discussion.

One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". (There is a whole forest of things, in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus. ) And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes discussions that have happened in the past. The results of especially important past discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in Wikipedia space. There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is very quick rundown:

Content policies and guidelines

• WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing)
• WP:OR - no original research is allowed here (you cannot just write what you think or know, based on your own authority), instead
• WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!)
• WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content. This one is important and I hope you read it.
• WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too. So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
• WP:BLP - this is a policy specifically about articles about living people. We are very careful about these articles (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since issues of legal liability can arise for WP, and people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves. This will apply to any content about living people in the article about your dad.
• WP:NOTABILITY - this is a policy that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X, with which to build a decent article.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are:

• WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed - please, please keep in mind that "consensus" is not unanimity. If you propose something and other folks disagree, please ask why and really listen to the answer and try to understand it. Be ready to yield if pretty much everybody else is disagreeing with you. This is difficult for editors with a conflict of interest to understand so please keep this in mind.
• WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice. This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and making people angry, and having that get in the way of getting things done. We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes. So just try to avoid doing or writing things that create unproductive friction.
• WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor. Don't personalize it when content disputes arise. (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
• WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world. Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy.
• WP:DR - if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it. If you cannot, then use one of the methods here to get wider input. There are many ways to do this - it never has to come down to two people arguing. There are instructions here too, about what to do if someone is behaving badly, in your view. Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes. Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from content disuptes getting mixed up with behavior disputes when people lose their tempers. Stay cool and remember there is no deadline here.
• WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one, or the one for the article about your dad. At article talk pages, basically be concise, discuss content not contributors, and base discussion on the sources in light of policies and guidelines, not just your opinions or feelings. (That is really important!!) At user talk pages things are more open, but that is the relevant place to go if you want to discuss someone's behavior or talk about general WP stuff - like this whole post.

If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough.

Finally, at the Talk page, if you want to propose content, please be really specific. Say something like:

Can we add the following: "blah blah blah blah."

References

-- your signature

Like that. Give people something very concrete to respond to.

There you go. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me. You have been really gracious here and I appreciate that. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, very informative and I will be coming back to this information to review it I am sure. Thank you very much. I will re-introduce myself to the Talk:William L. Uanna page and do my best to follow the guidelines. CIC7 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Great. Just please try to remember to listen to folks who can be more objective than you as they have distance. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog. I see the message below from BrownHairedGirl. I am confused about the term "topic ban" and am I allowed to edit William L. Uanna? Can you please tell me where I stand? What just happened? CIC7 (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog. I know I agreed not to edit William L. Uanna and that I will make suggestions on his Talk Page. Is this ban forever? CIC7 (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion about you now closed

Hi CIC7

This to inform you that I have closed discussion about you at WP:ANI. Please take time to carefully read my closing statement:

No consensus for a topic ban or other sanction at this stage.
After a prolonged history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, this discusion has led to CIC7 giving assurances[2][3] of future good conduct, including a commitment not to edit the article William L. Uanna in which CIC7 has a COI. However, the COI editing and other related misconduct has been going on for several years, and CIC7 has been warned before. So if these assurances are not upheld, it will be hard to view this as anything other than a WP:NOTHERE case ... so prompt sanctions will be likely.

Please be in no doubt that the community now expects an end to the long-standing problems. For example, in 2010 you were warned twice[4][5] not to post original research, and your conflict of interest editing has also been noted many times over the years.

If you want guidance on how to ensure that you contribute constructively, please do take time to read the guidelines posted above by User:Jytdog under the section heading How this place works. If any of that is unclear, then Wikipedia:Questions suggests plenty of places to ask for help.

Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

copied here from my Talk page; same questions are above Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog. I left a message for you on my talk page. As you know I have a COI with the William L. Uanna page. BrownHairedGirl left me a message and I am confused about what just happened. You get to the point quickly and I am sure you can sum this up for me in short order. The main things that I took away from BrownHairedGirl's message was that I am not under a topic ban (I don't know exactly what that means) and it was said that I agreed not edit William L. Uanna. Yes, I agreed to make suggestions on the William L. Uanna Talk page. I am wondering if I will I ever be allowed to edit the page directly again? Is there anything else that I am missing in the message? It seemed very final - case closed. Can you reply on my Talk Page? CIC7 (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Jytdog. I want to understand what just happened with the BrownHairedGirl message and I feel I had better ask what has come into my mind. Can I talk to other editors on their Talk Pages about William L. Uanna. Specifically those who have made edits or comments on my Talk page or the William L. Uanna Talk page about William L. Uanna? I am just trying to cover the bases. And, are all my avenues of appeal exhausted? Where do I stand now. CIC7 (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for asking! OK, as I wrote to you, Wikipedia is a community of editors. Everybody is free to come be part of the community, but when you come, you have to play by Wikipedia's rules (the policies and guidelines). Its like any community - if you go to Japan, you bow; if you go to Germany, you call people you don't know "Sie" and never "du" when you address them directly, etc. I walked you through the rules - the norms, policies, and guidelines that govern this Wikipedia world. Like I said, anybody is free to edit, but it is a privilege that is freely granted, not a right. Editing privileges are taken away in whole or part, temporarily or forever, when people violate the policies or guidelines a lot, or just consistently ignore them.

We call a short term complete loss of editing privileges a "block". When your account is blocked, the only thing you can edit is your own Talk page - the Wikipedia software won't allow you to edit anything else. Blocks usually expire. First-time blocks are 24 or 48 hours; if someone keeps acting badly, they get longer blocks. When the time period ends, the Wikipedia software lets you edit again. Now, when we give up on someone completely, we "indefinitely block" them. That block doesn't expire. Those are the normal ways that people lose privileges.

Another way that we restrict privileges, is by a "topic ban". This is not in the software - this is more like a "restraining order" where the person with the topic ban (or TBAN for short) has to avoid the topic. We give these to people when their work on some topic is just too disruptive, and there are always arguments and problems. People become disruptive presences for many reasons. One of them, is that the person is really passionate about something and cannot control that passion - and maybe is so passionate that they don't even take the time to understand this Wikipedia world and just do whatever they want to try to express their passion in Wikipedia. They just ignore everybody else, or just yell at them. Closely related to that, a person can have an actual conflict of interest of some kind. There are other reasons, but those are the most common.

So you have been violating the policies and guidelines here for a long time and just ignoring other editors and the policies and guidelines. You were really, really upsetting other people here. One of those people got so upset that they said you should be TBANed from the topic of your dad - in other words, you would never be allowed to even mention your dad in Wikipedia again. You would have a "restraining order". Happily for you, you started paying attention and actually talking back with us. So for now - for now - the community is not going to TBAN you. But the community only did that, because you promised not to directly edit the article about your dad, and instead to offer suggestions on the Talk page.

So no, you cannot edit the article about your dad. Yes, you are welcome to participate on the Talk page, which is here: Talk:William L. Uanna. Only there, not William L. Uanna.

Do you understand? You can reply here. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi CIC7

Just a quick note to say that I agree entirely with Jytdog's excellent explanation. I had intended write my own reply to your questions, but Jytdog has said nearly everything I wanted to say. But I will add one point:

You asked above[6] how long you should refrain from editing the page William L. Uanna. The answer is: for as long as the conflict of interest lasts, which in this case is forever. If we come back next month or next year or even in 100 years, he will still be your late father, so you will still have a conflict of interest.

After many years of breaking Wikipedia's rules, you have now finally agreed to do what you should have done from the start, and not edit the article. If you keep that promise, then that problem will be gone ... but if you break it, then action will be taken against you. That's all there is to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. Whew, that was close. It's a good thing I was paying attention and responded. I will do my best to edit without COI or bias. Which you probably know from your experience with other cases will be a challenge for me. I have hundreds of pictures, documents, etc. and have done extensive study into my father's career and the issues it touched upon. From the start I am handicapped by not knowing yet how to footnote and link directly. In the Talk:William L. Uanna can I just mention a web site or book or do I have to footnote a reference to it? A web site, can I put the http address in so someone can visit it? Do I have to create a footnote or a link? And the documents that I have put into Category:Bud Uanna - are they COI suspect? I thought that was why Wikimedia was created so people could access photos and documents for Wikipedia. Can I reference them? Many of them are FOIA released documents or newspaper clippings or U.S Government photos. I know that you both must be very busy, any help you can lend will be greatly appreciated and I intend to do my part and edit clearly and accurately - keeping a close eye on COI and bias, your eyes on the page would help too I am sure. CIC7 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

CIC7, with any reference, the more info you give, the easier it is for others to verify it. There are many ways to cite references, which you can read about at WP:CITE.

In a very helpful post above, Jytdog pointed you towards WP:RS. That page explains how to use sources: which types of sources are best, and how to assess them. Please take time to study it, and to make sure that you really do understand it.

You mention FOIA-released documents, which are a type of primary source. Wikipedia discourages use of primary sources: see WP:WPNOTRS and WP:PRIMARY, and please do study them.

You may note that I have twice stressed the need to study these policies and guidelines ... and now I'm going to stress it a third time: read the f****** policies. Like, really read and study the policies. The reason I'm repeating it is that since Jytdog posted all those helpful links for you, I see no sign in any of your replies that you have actually studied that pile of reading material.

Stephen, Wikipedia editors have spent a lot of time and effort on writing those policies and guidelines: checking that they do reflect consensus, tweaking the wording for clarity, and updating them as needed. I am very happy to help answering questions which have not been resolved in your reading ... but I am not prepared to spend time constructing an individual tutorial for an editor who doesn't put in the effort to do their own studying. Please do your homework! :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I get you, loud and clear. I will read the policies and do my homework. Am I allowed to go to the talk pages of other editors? I am thinking about ones that have contributed to William L. Uanna, and talk to them about William L. Uanna? CIC7 (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Article talk pages, are the right place for you to talk with the other editors - each of them a person, just like you - about the article. So if you want to propose content, the place to do that is at the article Talk page so that everybody who cares about the article can see it and respond, if they want to. User talk pages, like this one or like mine, or for discussing stuff not particular to an article. So please do it at the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Once again, Jytdog's answer is eloquent and right.

But once again, these are questions which Stephen could have answered by reading the relevant guideline. In this case, it's WP:TPG, the last of the pages listed in Jytdog's list above. Please, Stephen, do try to find the answers yourself. Please do your homework! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

William L. Uanna ‎

You already know that all Wikipedia content must be based on reliable sources. If you make suggestions on the Talk page, please limit those suggestions to specific content supported with a specific source. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Should the statement at the end of the movie ENOLA GAY be allowed on William L. Uanna's page? You know, that he was murdered in Africa.

CIC7 (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That is an appropriate, clear,and concise question to ask at the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind opening up a discussion about this on William L. Uanna's Talk Page? And, I feel the information on him is narrow. I would like to connect his career to other subjects. If you read AREA 51 by Annie Jacobsen I think you would see where his career has many connections to Area 51. And of course there is Roswell - the 509th Composite Group and the UFO's. And many other things - J. Robert Oppenheimer. Is there any way to do this? CIC7 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

As you know content needs to be sourced to reliable sources per WP:RS. That is a hard, full, stop. Please just don't write long rambling reminiscences; instead make concise posts proposing specific content or sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, CIC7. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Final warning

Hi CIC7. The next time you do this, which is a long ramble not directed to any specific changes in content, we will go back to ANI and you will very likely be indefinitely blocked. Lots of people explained to you that you cannot use the article talk page to share your thoughts about your dad or anything. The talk page is strictly for discussing concrete, specific changes to the article. That is all that it is for. Jytdog (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I do this because I feel the need to impress on you, or someone? that William L. Uanna was a prominent person in history. Connected to many events and issues. Not just the Manhattan Project. The Atomic Bomb ushered in a new age - Bud Uanna had a varied and exciting career before Trinity Site at Alamogordo, New Mexico and up to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The question still stands, for me anyway. Why can't the statement that he was murdered be put in William L. Uanna. CIC7 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I wish someone would step in and try and write the whole history of William L. Uanna. I have VERY MUCH INFORMATION going back to his High School days when he went to the Penn State Relays, many FOIA documents and newspaper articles and pictures. Are you interested? History is a strange thing. How many people know who John Foster Dulles is when they land at Dulles Airport? Being blocked from his page is frustrating. Maybe we can get some common ground and get some new information on his page. But, trying to suppress the statement that he was murdered is... I don't understand. CIC7 (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you create a personal website for that purpose. Wikipedia is not available for posting of original research. The article may be able to link to it in the "external links" section. As for your not understanding, I suggest that you read through the posts on this page, which address that general topic and go back some years. Please note that, with regard to posting of personal reminiscences and original research, you must do it on a private website. You cannot do so in any part of Wikipedia, including this page. This is not the commencement of a dialogue, but a continuation of the final warning you have gotten concerning your repeated misconduct. Coretheapple (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Just so I understand. By what authority do you make these statements? Are you, in this case Coretheapple and Jytdog, on an administrative board or do you have jurisdiction at Wikipedia? Just so I know. I seem to be encountering the same individuals over and over. CIC7 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that in your seven years on Wikipedia, longer than I've been here, you'd have figured it out. Next stop on this choo-choo train: ANI. Done here for now. Coretheapple (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting answer. But no, sorry, I have not figured it out. I think you all protest too much and do not want to accommodate. I think there is a bias. It is almost as if you all have a personal stake in people or organizations that touch on William L. Uanna's career. By the way what is your day job? Not a railroad engineer? I am an electrician. I am looking for legitimate authority. If you have it at Wikipedia, so state. Hijacked authority is what I contend happened to the United States of America. I want to keep the conversation going. Keep the train in the station. Let some other people get on it. CIC7 (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I laid out how WP works up above, in the section called "how Wikipedia works". You are mistaking what you can do in Wikipedia (it is possible for you to go to any page in Wikipedia, and write anything you want, right?) with what you should do, as determined by the community over the last 16 years. These norms are "codified" in the policies and guidelines linked in that section. For example you keep wanting to base content on FOIA documents. Those documents have no value here, per WP:RS, unless they are hosted by a reliable source, like the NYT, and interpreted by a reliable source, like the NYT or by a historian. It would be way too easy for some person to fabricate a bunch of documents, post them at ScribD, and say they are authentic. Right? The chain of evidence matters here, as does the interpretation of authentic primary sources. This is all fundamental to how this place works.

But like many people who come here with a COI, none of this matters to you - you have ignored it and continue to ignore it.

You are refusing to see WP for what it is. That is why you are probably going to be indefinitely blocked. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by who? And I'm wondering, when you say "It would be way too easy for some person to fabricate a bunch of documents..." It would not be easy at all for me or anyone I know. Would that be easy for you? Have you been to Category:Bud Uanna and looked at the FBI, Secret Service, CIA, AEC, Department of Defense and Department of State Documents about William L. Uanna. They back each other up. And have you seen the picture of Uanna with Secretary of State Dulles. Fabricated? There is a 1958 NYT "Man in the News" article about Uanna that reflects what these documents say. The document I mentioned in Uanna's Talk page, from Uanna to CIA Director Allen Dulles, before you removed the entire Talk Page, is from the CIA Website of CIA released documents. It is on Category:Bud Uanna too and there are more newspaper articles about Uanna there. Some of them are front pages. One shows Uanna riding the running board of the car following Queen Elizabeth's. But is that him? Is that really him? The other newspaper shows him with Queen Elizabeth. Another article shows Uanna's photo with President Eisenhower's. Are you sure you want to see this by yourself? Do you need a "historian" to sit in with you while you look? CIC7 (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Just like before, through ANI. You may or may not recall that last May you were a hair from getting indefinitely blocked at ANI, and I worked with you to prevent that. I was and have been trying to help you. You are refusing to learn how WP works, and I am done trying to help you.

If you make another long ramble of a post at the article talk page, not directly suggesting a change to content and presenting reliable sources (as we define them) supporting the proposed changes, I will not come back here. I will go to ANI, and present the evidence of what you have done, and I have no doubt -- at all - that you will be indefinitely blocked. You have made your bed. You will lay in it. I will not reply here further. Jytdog (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. I do like talking to you though. You have made a bed too. I am tired and going to my bed now. I mean it when I say I hope you have a restful night. CIC7 (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, CIC7. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, CIC7. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)