User talk:Keepitneutral

Welcome! Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
 * Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
 * Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome! &mdash; Kf4bdy talk contribs

RSD page
Hi, I am sure that it is true that RSD believes that Strauss' portrayal of them is unfair. Still, that can't be put in the article without a citation, even if you are working for RSD or something. That's how Wikipedia works (see WP:V). If you or RSD wants to say that Strauss was being unfair somewhere in the article, then the way to do it would be like this: (1) RSD would need to put up whatever it wants to say about Strauss on a website, or say it to a journalist who would put it in print, or put it in a book, and then (2) then cite that in the article. Hope this helps. --SecondSight 00:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at our three revert rule policy. You and others fighting over the Real Social Dynamics article are going to be blocked if the revert wars continue. If you have problems with the content, take it to the discussion page of the article and work it out. Shell babelfish 01:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Its hard to work it out when the RSD site is being attacked daily and when neutral information like the cities thar RSD operates in are removed and biased and unwarranted criticism like Neil Strauss quotes are continually being added.

Regarding reversions made on June 16 2006 (UTC) to Real_Social_Dynamics
I took a RSD bootcamp and it helped me immensely and I'm trying to keep these pages balanced. Right now there seems to be a clear bias in favor of MM by some of the other editors who seem determined to find something, anything, that they can put on to do harm to RSD. There was once a MM criticism section which was removed by several users. Apparently, wikipedia doesn't think MM should have a criticism section. But the crticism that is being thrown at RSD is unfair. People think that what they read in the Game is real and that Strauss is a neutral journalist, he is not. Then Thundercat and other put out an unverifiable memo that is allegedly from RSD. Legal action appears to have been taken thundercat quickly folded. Listen, take a look at the situation for a second. If Thundercat wasn't doing anything wrong, he wouldn't have taken the stuff down. I say his site is garbage because it is. There is hardly anything useful on that site anymore and his feud with RSD is ridiculous. Thundercat works directly with Strauss, they both marketed and hyped Strauss's annihilation method DVDs before they came out, do you think that is a coincidence or do you think that Thundercat helped Struass out of the good of his heart? Theres a lot of money in this business and some users here don't get that. When I say Strauss has no credibility, I mean that too. If you followed the events between the release of his book and the release of the annihilation method you will come to the same conclusion. He acts like he wants to help everyone and goes out and hype himself all over the media as the best PUA. He hints at the annihilation method soon after the release of his book but repeatedly swears that he will enver release it. He claims it is too powerful. Eventually he hypes it to a point where its basically being marketed as a magic pill for men to be successful with women and the week before he release his DVDs he continues to explain how he fortuitously only made 400 copies not intending to sell them but that now he is. Then he sells them for $4,000 netting himself over a million dollars in a day. When I read the game I loved Strauss but his act has gotten old and it seems he was always after the money. As for MM, I don't have much of a problem with them except for the fact that users here continue to push for criticism for RSD but not for MM. MM can be criticized as well but users here don't seem to want to allow that. So I got tired of all the RSD bashing and started to defend them using wikipedia policies which I feel is appropriate. Now I'm being blocked by sarcastic, rude users who argue about fairness when they are unwilling to be fair themselves. Wikipedia is a great resource but right now its being used more for criticism than information in the seduction pages. I've tried to be fair and compromise. Users would complain that the RSD page is an advertisement when the MM page and the page for Mystery were filled with links for products before I started improving these pages. As of today, I had to remove two obvious and unreference links to MM products from the Mystery Page. If you guys are going to watch these pages then watch them fairly. The reason I compared the RSD site to the MM site is because the MM is much more of a slantd advertisement than the RSD page. Users here want to nitpick over the alleged fact that RSd instructors may have used to work for Mystery Method and then link within the RSD page to the Mystery Method web site. That is ridiculous. Users here rail about how that is an important part of the history of RSD. People are pushing to include trivial references to RSD instructors because its a vital part of the history and Tyler is "inextricably linked" to RSD. Ok, well is Mystery inextricably linked to Myster Method? Did any of the users here who tout the unbiased view of Neil Strauss ever include something about how Mystery was in and out of mental institutions? Or is that not history? Is that not important. Some people here are too closely involed in all of this and fighting too damn hard to find something bad about RSD. The whole Mystery web site is without criticism and was a giant linked advertisement for MM and the MM web site before I started taking away some of the unnecessary links. All I ask is that these pages are regulated fairly.Keepitneutral 00:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The place for all that is on the talk page of the article. I blocked you based on 3RR, not whether you're right or not William M. Connolley 07:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't post there becuase I was blocked, by you.Keepitneutral 13:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)