User talk:Truthfactsmatter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New editor learning wiki policies[edit]

I joined wikipedia from a friend's suggestion because I enjoy fact checking and research. I am learning as I go along and using the guides given. Please let me know if I make a mistake so I can fix it and learn.

The most challenging part is learning the code language so pages that don't allow visual editing are a bit messy. I'll improve. --Truthfactsmatter (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First lesson[edit]

Information icon Hi Truthfactsmatter! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Brian Harrison (government official) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. KidAd • SPEAK 05:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SPI[edit]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthfactsmatter. Thank you. LM2000 (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sock puppet! Just a person learning how to edit on wikipedia! The user LM2000 is harassing me. Truthfactsmatter (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021[edit]

Information icon Hello, Truthfactsmatter, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sockpuppet - unfairly targeted[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here I'm new to wikipedia and learning how to edit. But I am one person, operating from one IP address on one computer. The subject of ONE article is harassing me for editing his page with accurate information. I need help from someone with more experience so I can prove I'm real.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Please only have one appeal open at a time. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:41, 24 April 2021 (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.

Burma8888 is not my account[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here the editor Burma8888 is not my account and not a sock puppet of mine. Check the IP addresses and anything else to show that this I am being unfairly targeted by user LMK2000 to preserve the Mark Halperin page from being updated

Decline reason:

You have been confirmed by checkuser evidence as not only Burma8888, but also 2 other accounts. As such and given this dishonesty, I have gone ahead and blocked your account. For the record at the time of these appeals being filed, you were not a blocked party. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:42, 24 April 2021 (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 is factually incorrect and a false charge. I have appealed by email to do a check. It is impossible to find any account other than mine at this IP address. Truthfactsmatter (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help me ![edit]

Please help me with... Can someone help me handle the harassment from user LM2000 accusations of sock puppet and removing all edits from the Mark Halperin page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Halperin

I am new to wikipedia and learning the ropes but I have had no problems so far with any edits that I have done. But this one user for this one page keeps going behind me to revert back all my edits. Now the editor LM2000 has accused me of being a sock puppet. I need that to be checked to prove I'm innocent.

The edits I put on the Mark Halperin page are all sourced to newspapers and I included many sources so that I could be sure any high level editor who came behind me had multiple places to check. I can't find anything wrong that would have the user continue to undo my work. Can someone help me? Truthfactsmatter (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to comment on the sockpuppetry case, but I can comment on your edits on the article. If someone reverts you on an article, you should obtain consensus on the talk page, not by reverting back. Even worse, you're reverting on a biography of a living person, which has stricter standards. So before adding back your substantial edit (which should have been discussed first actually, for a BLP), obtain consensus first. pandakekok9 (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) I have tried repeatedly to talk with LM2000 but I am not getting a response, that is why I have been forced to escalate. The user is attempting to block all edits with false accusations of sock puppetry. Look at the changes to the page and show me what is inaccurate or not sourced to a legitimate major news source. I will consider those things. Truthfactsmatter (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, I wish I can help you at the moment. The edits you've made in makhia bryant was excellent. Keep up the great work! Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiexplorationandhelping Thanks so much for the encouragement! I'm really enjoying contributing and wish I had learned about this years ago. It's fun to help. Truthfactsmatter (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

Please help me with use LM2000 who is harassing me. He continually removes my edits from Mark Halperin page. When another editor put them back on the page, LM2000 falsely accused me of using a sock puppet. I need help to deal with this user so I can continue to contribute. 

Truthfactsmatter (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've already answered your question above. Seek consensus. pandakekok9 (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pandakekok9 I cannot find consensus when LM2000 does not communicate. So please stop getting involved in order to stop others from helping the problem. Reposting now. Do not get on it. Truthfactsmatter (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Anyone except pandakekok9[edit]

Please help me with... This is my 3rd time asking the same question because user pandakekok9 continues to close the help without helping. I cannot resolve this with LM2000 because he does not communicate. He merely deletes my edits on Mark Halperin page and another editor and then falsely claims both are sock puppets of me. I need a fair and uninvolved editor to look at Mark Halperin page edits for the credible news sources that were removed for no reason by LM2000. Thank you. Truthfactsmatter (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be engaged in a content dispute and possibly alleging misconduct on the part of another editor. That is not what the {{help}} templates are for. None of the editors who routinely respond to the template are going to involve themselves in your dispute.
The stages for escalation are outlined at dispute resolution. Those steps allow you to gradually engage with more editors to try to get a better consensus for what the content should be. If you want to complain about another editor's behavior, the place for that is WP:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents, or in some more specific cases, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Be aware that reports at ANI involve considering the behavior of both sides and often will not result in resolution of the content dispute except in the de facto sense if one of the participants is blocked or banned.
I see you a working on placing a properly functioning request at WP:Third opinion#Active disagreements and experiencing some difficulty getting it to work as desired. Let me know if you want help with that. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmcgnh: Now CU confirmed master. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmcgnh: I don't know why @thesanddoctor keeps getting on my page but I need help. As you could see, I tried the 3O route and still want to do it. The sand doctor keeps saying that I'm a sock puppet and it's not true. I have emailed the larger group to get a user check to prove my case. Can you help to continue the 3o request because I believe that is the source of all of these problems because I had no issues until I edited Mark Halperin's page and LM2000 kept taking out the edits and will not respond on the talk pages or anywhere. Thank you. Truthfactsmatter (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While you are blocked, anything other than an unblock request is not worth worrying about. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:La Roche Posay[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:La Roche Posay requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.laroche-posay.us/about-us. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. –dlthewave ☎ 05:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthfactsmatter. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
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 ~~~~}}.  TheSandDoctor Talk 05:40, 24 April 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here -- I am a regular person! Why is this happening and how can I prove it?Truthfactsmatter (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Only one open at a time please. MER-C 19:07, 24 April 2021 (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.

MER-C Is my appeal being processed somewhere? I keep seeing the same editor declining my requests for an IP check and I don't know how else to do this. This is very unfair to do to a new user. I don't know how to write code, so it's very hard to figure out how to prove my innocence without that expertise. This has made me really distrust wikipedia and the control that one person can have to stop new people from editing. Truthfactsmatter (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Truthfactsmatter! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

I've had to revert several of your edits at Oprah with Meghan and Harry, Draft:La Roche Posay and 2020–2021 United States racial unrest because they were copy-pasted directly from the source. Please be sure to write in your own words. –dlthewave ☎ 05:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining this to me and for helping me. I actually -- wrongly -- thought that directly quoting a news outlet was the RIGHT thing to do. I've learned and I'll write my own words from now on for it.

Should I go back to those pages and rewrite in my words or leave what you did now to fix?

I only started the La Roche Posay page because I was practicing creating content and that is why I didn't publish it for review. I wanted to create pages that link what products can be bought with FSA funds because that's not on here yet.

Also, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to talk to you on this post or go to yours, so if this is wrong, let me know.

Thank you. Truthfactsmatter (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfairly blocked from interactions witih LM2000[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

The user LM2000 keeps changing back my edits on the Mark Haperin page. Then he claimed all editors to the page are sock puppets. I am a real person and this is totally unfair. I'm relatively new so I can't figure out how to prove that I am a regular person with one account so please help me do that so I can get back to editing. The editor that blocked me claims I am a sockpuppet of Hound1330 -- I don't know this account or have any connection to it or even why it's being connected to me. Can someone please look into this false accusation? Truthfactsmatter (talk) 2:31 am, Today (UTC+9)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request 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 the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2021 (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.

See WP:NOTTHEM. Also, a checkuser has found the case against you to be very strong (especially considering the behavioral evidence). Short of you actually confessing, this is the strongest a case gets (and that's not setting a low bar). Unless you have a good explanation for why those other accounts were helping you from a very similar IP address, you're not going to be unblocked. We have not provided such an explanation and unblocked you accordingly because the most plausible ones still involve some culpability on your part (for example). It also doesn't help in discussions here and at Talk:Mark_Halperin#User_LM2000_problems, you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that you've made mistakes or that anyone might know more than you. "I'm a new user" is a useless excuse if you refuse to learn from your actions. It is not a get-out-of-jail free card where you can refuse to consider that multiple experienced users know what they're talking about. It does not let you continue to misrepresent the situation in ways that everyone can clearly see are wrong.
What it means is that if you were sincerely trying to learn, we'd help you. But no, your responses are nothing short of gaslighting. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson I emailed the group and am waiting for them to do the check to see I have no accounts other than this one. There is zero evidence that I am a sock puppet of anything. No one has shown any proof because it is not true. I'm appealing for the FOURTH TIME. Truthfactsmatter (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN: A checkuser already did check you and found your account was suspiciously close to the others. That's what's shown on the sockpuppet investigation page.
That is evidence. Listing it publicly would violate our anti-doxxing policy and be unsafe for you whether or not you are guilty or innocent.
If I was wrong about you refusing to acknowledge the possibility that you've made mistakes or that anyone might know more than you, then you'd've already gotten that.
If I was wrong to call your responses gaslighting, then you'd've tried to account for the CU evidence instead of acting like a CU never happened and could only clear you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson You seem emotionally involved in this case with my account. Among the non factual/odd and bordering on harassment accusations to me include:

1. Short of you actually confessing, this is the strongest a case gets (and that's not setting a low bar) 2. you can refuse to consider that multiple experienced users know what they're talking about." 3. everyone can clearly see are wrong. 4. you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that you've made mistakes or that anyone might know more than you. 5. your responses are nothing short of gaslighting 6. found your account was suspiciously close to the others 7. If I was wrong to call your responses gaslighting, then you'd've tried to account for the CU evidence instead of acting like a CU never happened and could only clear you.

Appeal block- request check my IP[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

My account is one computer with one person in one wifi at one IP address. I deny the block by the one admin (who for some reason reacted again below with false accusations. I emailed the CU group but have not gotten a reply. Can a new admin look at the alleged proof that I have more than one account? I will give my real name, real email address or cell phone number to talk to someone about this.

Decline reason:

A checkuser already did check your account and found convincing technical evidence that you have abused multiple accounts. As such, you have been blocked and, per your below trolling, had your talk page access revoked. At this stage, the only appeal mechanism is WP:UTRS. However, abuse of that system without admitting or giving a plausible explanation will result in a block from that as well. I am declining your unblock request 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 the guide to appealing blocks for more information. TheSandDoctor Talk 01:02, 25 April 2021 (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.

They already did. That is what "Checkuser" means! The proof has already been found. Continuing to refuse to acknowledge in your responses is gaslighting, which will not work on a site where all actions are recorded and almost all of it is public info. You are not going to find an administrator stupid enough to not check the sockpuppet investigation, not see what a Checkuser wrote there about the IP address relationship between this and the other accounts, and then just take you at your word. Continuing to try to act like you can gaslight us is only going to decrease your chances of getting unblocked and increase the chances that we'll take away your talk page access.
Your cell phone would not verify anything.
Given that the other accounts behaved like sockpuppets of yours, the only possibility I can see for the other accounts not being your sockpuppets would be if you asked a friend to create those accounts. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You sure seem upset. Are you triggered? Truthfactsmatter (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TPA revoked per WP:DENY. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Truthfactsmatter&oldid=1044072728"