User talk:NeutralityPersonified

Welcome!

Hello, NeutralityPersonified, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! - 2/0 (cont.) 00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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

Sockpuppet Investigation
Hi, I noticed that you have been mentioned as a potential sockpuppet of User:TruthfulPerson in an ongoing sockpuppet investigation here and apparently no one bothered to inform you. So consider yourself notified. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Coffee Party USA. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Gobonobo T C 21:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Both at Coffee Party USA and earlier at United States Chamber of Commerce, you have been engaged in edit warring, repeatedly making substantively the same edit over the objections of your fellow volunteers. Please be aware that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, built by consensus among all editors concerned. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Coffee Party USA. 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. 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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

An outsider's view
Just an observation from a disinterested observer. I checked out your comments at Talk:Coffee Party USA. You've made some interesting points, and backed them up with facts and rationale. However, the tone is quite confrontational, and I am unable to ascertain why. I see potential to become a valuable contributor. I also see potential to become indefinitely blocked. If you would like me to elaborate, I will, if not, that's fine as well.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A response to the comments you left on my talk page
. . . I didn't even read it all. ..

[Balance of comment removed for violation of Wikipedia policies regarding good faith and harassment] -- SPhilbrick  T  00:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this a spoof?

NeutralityPersonified (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Personified's Policy on Good Faith
Good faith criticism consists of fully informing oneself of the relevant circumstances before offering the criticism. Admissions such as "I didn't even read it all, but I thought you might be interested in a view from an uninvolved party" are evidence of extremely BAD faith.

A good example: Suppose there was a Wikipedia article about "The Cafe Party USA" which suggested that the "Cafe Party USA" was a civility-based movement the equivalent in political influence and membership as the Tea Party. Further suppose that the "Cafe Party USA" was in fact an astroturfed organization funded by George Soros-related sources started by an uncivil Tea Party-hater that never ran or elected a single candidate and which based its popularity and influence on nothing but Facebook "likes." Suppose even further that all contributions to the article which pointed out this reality were summarily deleted without comment or explanation, and that the article's sources were almost entirely quotes from the organization's website or leaders, or obscure blog entries. Suppose, finally, that the article's chief editor spent a good deal of time attempting to edit the Tea Party's Wikipedia entry to portray the party's membership as violent and racist.

In this situation, would it be acting in good faith accuse the person attempting to improve the article as "confrontational" -- without doing the slightest research in the editing history of the article or the good faith of the editors protecting it? Would it be good faith to admit you didn't even read the research history? Would it be good faith to suggest you have helpful suggestions on how to more effectively deal with the Cafe Party USA's editors, who simply delete all contribution with no faith at all? NeutralityPersonified (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Comment deleted for harassment, violated of Wikipedia policies.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to the hypothetical
Yes, it is possible to make a good faith accusation of an editor as "confrontational" without doing "the slightest research in the editing history of the article or the good faith of the editors protecting it". I'll be happy to provide a clear example if you wish. However, I'm not sure of the value of the example, or the hypothetical, as I did do some research of the editing history of the article, and I did not accuse you of being confrontational. So it looks to me like your hypothetical fails to correspond to the actual situation in every relevant critical aspect.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Now you've added outright lying to your extreme bad faith. Yes, you DID accuse me of being confrontational, in your very first comment.  Don't give me some nonsense about how you were just talking about "the tone", and how you meant everybody's tone -- you meant me specifically, or else you would have left similar comments on the talk page of all the participants in the Coffee Party discussion.  You didn't, now, did you?


 * Thank you for YOUR opinion of MY right to delete bad faith comments left on my talk page. I reject it.  And again, I note your extreme bad faith in attacking and threatening me for making such deletions, when my contributions to the Coffee Party page were routinely deleted without explanation.  Did you also go and threatening to ban all the editors involved in those alleged "violations?" No, you did not.  When you start doing that, I'll take you seriously.


 * You claim you "could" give an example of a situation where your commentary would be valid despite your having failed to read the background of the dispute. The short answer to this (bad faith) comment is (1) you didn't and (2) this situation doesn't qualify in any event.


 * I'll try to put it in nutshell for you: the editors of the Coffee Party are political operatives who are violating Wikipedia policy by maintaining a promotional vanity page for the organization and deleting all contributions to their view.  No amount of reason or persuasion or civility has any effect on them. They're acting in bad faith, just like you.  Now please just go away.  Your comments are harassing and from now on will be deleted without notice, in accordance with my (and Wikipedia's) policy.
 * You claim:


 * I'll try to put it in nutshell for you: the editors of the Coffee Party are political operatives who are violating Wikipedia policy by maintaining a promotional vanity page for the organization and deleting all contributions to their view.


 * If that is happening, it is unacceptable, and I'll take steps to ensure it doesn't occur, if I am presented with evidence. I am puzzled whether this is important to you, as you have spent most of your time arguing about other issues.
 * I won't give you any nonsense that my reference was to general tone. You are right that it was about you specifically. However, I offered to tell you how the tone was confrontational. I honestly thought you might not be aware of how it was perceived, and I believed (at the time) that perhaps you weren't intending to be confrontational, but just were using a style of conversation appropriate in other venues, and unaware of how it would be perceived here. If you think that is a distinction without a difference, well, we are now on the same page. I do view you (now) as confrontational. But I didn't at the time I made my statement, so your assertion that I lied is false. I'm often wrong, but I never lie, and those who know me know that it is one way to get me riled. However, you don't know me, so I'll let it pass. You clearly aren't interested in learning why your approach can be viewed as confrontational, so let's drop that issue.
 * Despite your confrontational attitude, your allegations are serious, and if you will summarize them here, I'll look into them. :::If you can't be bothered, I'll assume you aren't really interested. Your call.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Coffee Party Progressives


A tag has been placed on Coffee Party Progressives, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Tea Party Nation, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Gscshoyru (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tea Party Nation, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Gscshoyru (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

 * My contributions were fully sourced with references to the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CBS, MSNBC, Fox, etc. etc. Those citations were removed, in bad faith, in favor of unreliable leftist blogs such as the Daily Kos.  Please stop vandalizing my contributions and threatening me or I will report you for the immediate suspension of privileges.

I have removed uninvited, harassing messages left on this page by various editors of the Anthony Weiner page. If further messages appear, I will report the individuals in question to Wikipedia.

Harassing Comment removed Liberal Classic (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Liberal Classic, FYI, Editors have every right to remove other folks comments from their own talk page per the guideline you linked above. --Harassing Comment removed. Threeafterthree (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Harassing Comment Removed Liberal Classic (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Liberal Classic, yes, I read the guideline. It seems like there is a rule/guideline for everything and always an exception/disclaimer for them :). I am not sure what exactly the deal is here, but editors can view the talk page histories if needed. Any user issues can also be brought to the appropriate admin board ect. Anyways, no biggie and cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Threeafterthree. My concern here is this editor is accusing others of harassment and threats, and refactoring his talk page to appear that he has been a victim. Liberal Classic (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@NeutralityPersonified: It used to be that people removed a talk page comment to signify that it had been read. The practice these days is to leave talk pages intact, and archive them when they get too long. I object to the characterization of my comments. You seem to be suggesting that I am threatening you which I have not done. What gives? Liberal Classic (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I object to your characterization of my edits also. As I said in my last message I never threatened you at all, just notified you that you added unsourced contentious material about a living person.  GB fan (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Coffee party progressives for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coffee party progressives is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Coffee party progressives until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 05:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts to edit tedentiously and evade the three-revert rule. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MastCell Talk 16:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)