User talk:Truthtalkstruth1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Truthtalkstruth1, 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! FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the edits and reverts you have made on Stalking. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cailil ^talk 22:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although you have not technically violated the 3 revert rule within 24 hours, users are prohibited from edit warring. You are currently engaged in an edit war at Stalking. Please reconsider your current course of action. We prohibit edit warring as it clogs up the history function with the same repeated edits (read WP:3RR for more on this). Also as you are new to the site it might be best for you to read WP:5 to get to grips with the policies are guidelines that govern how people behave on site and what gets added to articles--Cailil ^talk 22:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Cailil et al - I am not in breach of any Wikipedia policies for the facts I have stated. Clearly you are not neutral as you are repeatedly deleting perfectly valid and verified relevant comments. I do not know how Wikipedia works but your continual harassment of my edits by repeatedly deleting them is very worrying. Please explain yourself before I report this matter further and please state your personal interest in both falsely claiming that I have breached any policies and why you continually deleting fact which contribute to a neutral duscussion, and not a one way bias discussion. Truthtalkstruth1

Truthtalkstruth1, I'm sorry but you're edits to Stalking are violating a series of policies. I have already advised you to stop reverting on that article. Since then you have made 2 reverts[1][2] in a continued edit-war. You have already been warned that the content is original research and in violation of the neutral point of view policy. Please reconsider your actions.
If you don't understand how this site works I suggest you listen to the warnings and comments of others. Stop reverting and take the time to acquaint yourself with our core polices and behavioural guidelines as expressed at WP:5.
Please be 100% clear, edit warring is a serious breach of site rules and will be prevented by blocking if necessary. Also, claiming or assuming that other editors are acting in bad faith is another serious breach of policy. We demand that editors assume good faith of fellow contributors while working on this site, failure to comply with this policy (called WP:AGF) will also result in the blocking of an account--Cailil ^talk 21:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Cailil et al: Wiki policies state that "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Do not edit apparent mistaken homophone contractions in comments of others. One may only ask the poster what they meant to say. Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection" I am not in breach of any policies, you keep making up new policies that I am apparently in breach of - I contebd that it is you is in breach of policies for repeatedly deleting my comments which has the effect of ensuring that the Stalking page is not neutral - is it just a list of bias unfounded, unverified, ill-researched comments. Truthtalkstruth1

You are quoting a policy that refers to talk pages. The article on Stalking is not a talk page, and reverting or removing material that violates policy is a normal part of the editing process. Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and post in support of your edits on Talk:Stalking rather than continuing to edit war. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truthtalkstruth1, this is your 3rd warning. You have been making the same kind of edits to the Mobbing and Paranoia articles. Also, as MrOllie correctly pointed out above, you were quoting talk page guidelines. The edit you made to paranoia reinserted original research - please do not do this again. Original research is a breach of one of teh core rules of this site: "No original research. Breaking that rule is a serious issue. Also be very very clear Truthtalkstruth1 I am not involved with you in away in a content dispute - others might be but you should be discussing changes with them rather than confusing me for them. Again, please reconsider your course of action - I suggest reading WP:5 to get a fuller understanding of how this site works and what its rules governing content and behaviour are--Cailil ^talk 17:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability/reliable sources policy

Please re-read WP:V and WP:RS, and the comments above. -- The Anome (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for For breaching site pollicy on revert warring on Mobbing, Stalking and Paranoia over the period August-September 2010.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Cailil ^talk 18:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Truthtalkstruth1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The edits I have made to the Mobbing article are not in breach of any Wikipedia rules, they are not independent research as linked to articles from international reputable newspapers, a large pschiatry magazine, and UK government research. Yet because these edits reflect unbias truth which Users Cailil, The Anome and MrOllie have continually and repeatedly deleted for unjustified reasons. Therefore, I wish the decisions of User Cailil, The Anome and MrOllie to be reviewed by a higher and independent authority within Wikipedia. Failing that, it is clear that Wikipedia has no regard to indepedent reputable facts and is not moderating its moderators properly. It is these moderators who have been disruptively deleting my edits

Decline reason:

You quite clearly broke the 3-revert rule, and you should review WP:NOTTHEM. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:58, 9 September 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.

You clearly have failed to read what an edit war is before requesting unblock. Because Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS, you must obtain consensus for your edits. Indeed, we have what is called the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If you make an edit and it is reverted, you MUST then use the talkpage to gain consensus - there are no if's because you supposedly hold the WP:TRUTH. As you clearly took part in an edit war, and thus acted against consensus, you now have a few days to better read and understand these key policies. As already advised, see also WP:NOTTHEM (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the record I have not reverted or in any other way engaged in a content dispute with this user. They were warned and blocked by me - that is all--Cailil ^talk 21:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, User Cailil, and others have repeatedly deleted my edits, by deleting them all. Each of the edits I made included links to publically available information from reputable sources, thise sources being an international newspaper, a psychology journal, and a British Government survey. Those same administrators and users then repeatedly deleted my well sourced, independent and verified edits and then when I attempted to re-instate them I was warned by User Cailill and then blocked. If Wikipedia administrators have any credibility they would be able to see my clearly my referenced edits and re-instate them. User Cailill (and others) must have political or other reasons why they responded in the way they did. Wikipedia editors should take care of their product lest it turns itself into a source of information which is censored by the poltically correct activists.(Truthtalkstruth1 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using a sock-puppet account to block evade and continue edit-warring. Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Truthtalkstruth1.
If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Cailil ^talk 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to be unblocked - the behaviour of the administrators on here is appalling, and I believe politically motivated so clearly not neutral. If such behaviour of the serial deletors is typical on Wikipedia then it renders Wikipedia worthless, and so I wish to have no further part. There should be a way for users such as Cailil, MrOllie and others to be blocked from disrupting the independence and neutral point of view, has anyone else had similar experiences with censorship by adninistrors and serial deleors of independent, verfified well sourced information?

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).

Truthtalkstruth1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like this sequence of events reviewed by an independent administrator, it is clear beyond any doubt that User Cailil is not the right person to be involved in censoring my posts, I think she/he holds political views on gender/feminist issues and is seeking to restrict free speech. As a new user, I posted some independent, well verified and well sourced information from a major international newspaper, a psychology journal and the British Government on some imprtant matters. User Cailil managed to come up with a load of different rules (which I am not familiar with) that had been breached when in fact they had not, e.g, stating that the information posted was not proper research. Certain other posters such as MrOllie (also an administrator?, together with Cailill repetaedly deleted my edits and harassed my account which led to the block, something that Cailil wanted I suspect. MrOllie is another who should be blocked as that users sole input on the Mobbing thread was to repeatedly delete the edits without resaon, I request that MrOllie is blocked.

Decline reason:

I've been watching your editing. It appears that you came to Wikipedia to push your own opinion about an issue you feel strongly about- you don't seem to be interested in the encyclopedia, except to the extent that it can help you to promote your point of view. When other users didn't agree with your desired edits, rather than either using discussion to persuade them or accepting that consensus was not with you, you tried to force your desired changes into articles by breaking Wikipedia's rules and edit-warring. However, none of that is the reason for your block. You were blocked for creating a second account to continue trying to force your desired edits into Wikipedia. You don't show any evidence that you understand Wikipedia's rules, or that you have any interest in following them. You have demonstrated that you are willing to disrupt the project and behave dishonestly. And I can't find any evidence that you are interested in Wikipedia for any reason other than promoting your own point of view. Others tried to warn you in a friendly way and to warn you in a firm way that you weren't behaving appropriately, and even tried a short block to make it clear that your actions were not acceptable, but none of that had any effect on your behavior. This block seems to be what's necessary to prevent any further disruption of Wikipedia. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:56, 11 September 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).

Truthtalkstruth1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your inferences are (deliberately I believe) completely unfouded. I posted links to certain articles which were independent factual information and reflected the point of view of the people writing and doing the research in those articles, and the law. So not my point of view at all. I did not attempt to force those changes into the mobbing article at all, I posted them once. Following harassment of my edits and false accusations of rule breaches by certain adninistrators (and users) with an obvious agenda I simply tried to reverse the unjustified deletions. It is the articles on Wikpedia such as Mobbing which, in the absence of my edits, are largely unverified and reflecting a point of view that remained unquestioned, there is no neutrality to them at all. And there will continue to be no neutrality to them until my edits are looked at by an independent administrator, and with respect it seens you are also not independent. It seens that powers to arbitrarily block users who do not agree with the point of views of certain administrators/users is being abused and I reckon I am not the first and wont be the last to fall victim to such abuse. My original warning was for me simply reinstating my original post, following repeated deletions by one or two other users. I do not call such behaviour friendly and it was the serial deletors who deserved a warning and whose behaviour was and is disruptice to both Wikipedia and new users. The effect of preventing my posts being seen is the real disruption to Wikipedia as it prevents the current bias points of view and unverified propaganda from being questioned. There was nothing dishonest about my behaviour by the way, the real dishonesty is from the other side.

Decline reason:

Edit warring and abusing multiple accounts are both things that are not tolerated at Wikipedia. Please read our guide to appealing blocks and do not blame others for your own actions if you ever want to be unblocked. Repeated requests that do not address the actual reasons for the block can and will lead to your access to this talk page being revoked. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 11 September 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).

Truthtalkstruth1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule"

All I did was post was well sourced verified information to ensure the article showed a neutral point of view. The edit warring as you put it in fact comprised repeated attempts on behalf of some posters and administrators to prevent the content appearing, my choice was to allow those censors to disrupt my contribution or to reinstate my edits. I chose the latter..

"You have already been warned that the content is original research and in violation of the neutral point of view policy"

Cailil stated this and it is clear that the links I posted are not original research and not in violation of the neutral point of view policy, the articles in the absence of my edits are in violation of the neutral point of view policy but Cailil was not interested in that.

"Also for the record I have not reverted or in any other way engaged in a content dispute with this user. They were warned and blocked by me - that is all--Cailil"

No Cailil decided to conjure up reasons for breach of policy where such breaches did not exist, the effect is that my edits were deleted, I maintain this is no different from content dispute, it is arbitrary censorship on behalf of Cailil, (I maintain because of his/her political views held).

"Edit warring and abusing multiple accounts are both things that are not tolerated at Wikipedia"

See above. Multiple accounts is irrelevant in this case, it is the multiple deletions and unjustified blockings that should not be tolerated.

"Please read our guide to appealing blocks and do not blame others for your own actions if you ever want to be unblocked. Repeated requests that do not address the actual reasons for the block can and will lead to your access to this talk page being revoked"

I have read the guidelines, the actions were those of the arbitrary censors and the unjustified original blocking based on unfounded accusation by Cailil that that edit was I breach of "the content is original research and in violation of the neutral point of view policy" as the edits were self-evidently not.

In my view Wikipedia either needs to change its policies so that administrators are not able to arbitrarily abuse new edits using distortions of Wikipedai policies, or Wikipedia policies need to be changed. For now I do not wish to be unblocked as I have no wish to waste my time if Wikipedia is a political project (rather than neutral), and this will be the outcome if administrators are not neutral in their actions and abuse their authority.

"Repeated requests that do not address the actual reasons for the block can and will lead to your access to this talk page being revoked" My rrequests were ignored, deliberately in my view"

Please include a decline or accept reason.

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've fixed your formatting error, which was preventing the bottom of this talk page from being visible. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've made another formatting error that prevents your request from being reviewed. But since your request still doesn't take responsibility for your own choices, there is no chance that anyone will unblock you based on it, so I've left the error in place. If you want to find and fix it yourself, you're welcome to do so. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Truthtalkstruth1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule" All I did was post was well sourced verified information to ensure the article showed a neutral point of view. The edit warring as you put it in fact comprised repeated attempts on behalf of some posters and administrators to prevent the content appearing, my choice was to allow those censors to disrupt my contribution or to reinstate my edits. I chose the latter.. "You have already been warned that the content is original research and in violation of the neutral point of view policy" Cailil stated this and it is clear that the links I posted are not original research and not in violation of the neutral point of view policy, the articles in the absence of my edits are in violation of the neutral point of view policy but Cailil was not interested in that. "Also for the record I have not reverted or in any other way engaged in a content dispute with this user. They were warned and blocked by me - that is all--Cailil" No Cailil decided to conjure up reasons for breach of policy where such breaches did not exist, the effect is that my edits were deleted, I maintain this is no different from content dispute, it is arbitrary censorship on behalf of Cailil, (I maintain because of his/her political views held). "Edit warring and abusing multiple accounts are both things that are not tolerated at Wikipedia" See above. Multiple accounts is irrelevant in this case, it is the multiple deletions and unjustified blockings that should not be tolerated. "Please read our guide to appealing blocks and do not blame others for your own actions if you ever want to be unblocked. Repeated requests that do not address the actual reasons for the block can and will lead to your access to this talk page being revoked" I have read the guidelines, the actions were those of the arbitrary censors and the unjustified original blocking based on unfounded accusation by Cailil that that edit was I breach of "the content is original research and in violation of the neutral point of view policy" as the edits were self-evidently not. In my view Wikipedia either needs to change its policies so that administrators are not able to arbitrarily abuse new edits using distortions of Wikipedai policies, or Wikipedia policies need to be changed. For now I do not wish to be unblocked as I have no wish to waste my time if Wikipedia is a political project (rather than neutral), and this will be the outcome if administrators are not neutral in their actions and abuse their authority. "Repeated requests that do not address the actual reasons for the block can and will lead to your access to this talk page being revoked" My requests were ignored, deliberately in my view, as there is no justification for the action taken by the administrators and serial deletors so they have no answer"

Decline reason:

The original block was clearly warranted, as was the subsequent indef for block evasion. Since you "do not wish to be unblocked", there is little left to say. I've removed your ability to further edit this page. Kuru (talk) 14:20, 12 September 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.