User talk:FaithHopeLoveTruth

Welcome![edit]

Hello, FaithHopeLoveTruth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Policy and guidelines[edit]

We use sources meeting Wikipedia:Rs for labels like false. We avoid "claims" except when attributing a quote, etc. because it isn't neutral. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the difference between "echo chamber" and "verifiable by reliable sources." Who can clarify? And is "Truth" still not a Wikipedia standard? Seems conspiratorial.FaithHopeLoveTruth (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your last comment sounds a bit paranoid. No, it would be nice to have the truth but that’s not always or even often possible outside of mathematics. So we base our articles on reliably published, ie mainstream, sources and try to show where there are disputes. Doug Weller talk 21:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the revelations that the FBI was paying Twitter to suppress news stories that proved to be completely true, I do not believe it is possible to have any meaningful standard of "reliable source." Therefore, we should use plain English as much as possible to determine "biased" vs. "neutral point of view." I can assure you that there are millions of people who believe that saying "false claims" is more neutral than "claims" is completely laughable, and makes Wikipedia a bad joke. FaithHopeLoveTruth (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Watching Musk's tweets are you? Anyway, that is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Eg #Twitter's former Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker was told in one email shared by independent journalist Michael Shellenberger that the company has collected $3,415,323 from the FBI.

"Jim, FYI, in 2019 SCALE instituted a reimbursement program for our legal process response from the FBI. Prior to the start of the program, Twitter chose not to collect under this statutory right of reimbursement for the time spent processing requests from the FBI," a former Twitter employee wrote. "I am happy to report we have collected $3,415,323 since October 2019! This money is used by LP for things like the TTR and other LE-related projects (LE training, tooling, etc.)."

The FBI official didn't deny the multimillion-dollar payment to Twitter, but said it was a "reimbursement" for the "reasonable costs and expenses associated with their response to a legal process…for complying with legal requests, and a standard procedure."#

In any case, this is pointless, our policies and guidelines aren't going to change because you don't like them. Doug Weller talk 07:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping they would change because they suck.FaithHopeLoveTruth (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Beccaynr (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Emma Weyant. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Emma Weyant. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Emma Weyant. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Emma Weyant shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Beccaynr (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Emma Weyant. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DanCherek (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended your block indefinitely for the comments you made after the previous temporary block (diff). Your talk page access may be revoked upon further disruption. DanCherek (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TPA revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]