User talk:SeekTheTruthUK

April 2020
Hello, I'm Flyer22 Frozen. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. I have reverted it back as it appears to be a biased opinion based on a recent headline from MSM. Wiki is based on facts not opinion. SeekTheTruthUK (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

What maintenance templates? SeekTheTruthUK (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

If you are referring to the members of SAGE being public, there is no citation required. The wiki lists members and the SAGE website also lists mins of each meeting along with their attendees. If you want to add that, then please do. However please don’t remove edits from wiki pages that don’t sit with your political views. Wiki is open and transparent. SeekTheTruthUK (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, you may be blocked from editing. This may be considered disruptive editing.''The wiki lists some people who were reportedly at one meeting; it is not an officially-published membership list, nor does a citation for one exist. If you make a claim, and it is challenged, you either provide a citation, or the claim will be removed. Either way, do not remove the citation needed template unless you provide a valid citation.'' Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

As the list of SAGE changes from meeting to meeting what citation do you required. Do you require one which fits in with your political bias or something else? Add the citation to the Sage website which lists all the committee meetings and their attendees. SeekTheTruthUK (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Your addition to Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. Text added in was copied entire (and I don't mean just the quote) from the Guardian article cited.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

General sanctions alert
--RexxS (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Have no idea what you are saying here or what this message is in relation to. SeekTheTruthUK (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then I'll explain it to you. Because of the potential for severe disruption on topics connected to COVID-19, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to exercise much broader powers that usual. These include placing topic bans on individual editors or placing restrictive conditions on how individual articles may be edited. It also places a greater burden on editors to adhere strictly to best behaviour in their interactions with other editors.
 * In your case, on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies article, you've already copied part of a source without attribution, copied another copyrighted source without permission, and aimed the following comment at fellow editor: "If you are not going to add material truthfully to this wiki. It will be removed. It wasn’t “widely” criticised. Please STOP posting biased unconfirmed material without any citation or worse, removing citations and comments which apparently do not fit with your own political view" In contentious articles, you are going to have to confine yourself to discussing edits and not throw around accusations of editors having political bias unless you have very strong evidence of problems caused. I hope that is now crystal clear. --RexxS (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In your case, on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies article, you've already copied part of a source without attribution, copied another copyrighted source without permission, and aimed the following comment at fellow editor: "If you are not going to add material truthfully to this wiki. It will be removed. It wasn’t “widely” criticised. Please STOP posting biased unconfirmed material without any citation or worse, removing citations and comments which apparently do not fit with your own political view" In contentious articles, you are going to have to confine yourself to discussing edits and not throw around accusations of editors having political bias unless you have very strong evidence of problems caused. I hope that is now crystal clear. --RexxS (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh so Wiki isn’t about the truth, it’s about someone’s biased opinion and when that opinion is questioned, it’s rejected. I get it.

So the section regarding the presence of political advisors in SAGE, which reads “their attendance and participation was widely criticised” isn’t political bias? Where was it widely criticised? The Guardian article referenced only mentions 2 undisclosed members who were not happy and then continues to mention more members who didn’t see any issue, including Sir Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty. Not exactly “widely criticised”. What a wiki “editor” appears to have done is take what Felicity Lawrence, Severin Carrell and David Pegg have said and have taken this to be truth or factual. Has the editor who added this section actually spoken to the members of SAGE to ascertain if this is true? Why has this not be removed in the same way you appear to removing my edits?

Your intentions to push you political bias is crystal clear. Thank you for being honest and letting me know that this is how wiki works. SeekTheTruthUK (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You can vent all you want, but you are still going to have to follow our policies if you want to edit here. Writing on Wikipedia is about summarising the best reliable sources as neutrally and accurately as possible. If you think the word "widely" isn't an appropriate summary of a source, then you post on the article talk making the case. The Guardian article seems to mention four unnamed members: "One attendee ...", "A second Sage attendee ...", "the two other Sage attendees", but that's not my concern with you. You copied almost your entire edit word-for word from the Guardian article, including the punctuation. If you do that again, I'll block you to prevent damage to Wikipedia. I hope that's clear enough. Now, I'm going to ask you nicely to strike your accusation of political bias against me, or produce evidence of my political bias. If you fail to do one or the other, I'll ask an uninvolved admin to sanction you. --RexxS (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You can vent all you want, but you are still going to have to follow our policies if you want to edit here. Writing on Wikipedia is about summarising the best reliable sources as neutrally and accurately as possible. If you think the word "widely" isn't an appropriate summary of a source, then you post on the article talk making the case. The Guardian article seems to mention four unnamed members: "One attendee ...", "A second Sage attendee ...", "the two other Sage attendees", but that's not my concern with you. You copied almost your entire edit word-for word from the Guardian article, including the punctuation. If you do that again, I'll block you to prevent damage to Wikipedia. I hope that's clear enough. Now, I'm going to ask you nicely to strike your accusation of political bias against me, or produce evidence of my political bias. If you fail to do one or the other, I'll ask an uninvolved admin to sanction you. --RexxS (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear, you do sound like a pompous twit. Enjoy posting your politically biased nonsense on Wikipedia. The fact that you got so uptight about being caught out simply proves my point.

Your edits prove your bias, your responses to my edits prove your bias and this whole message thread proves your bias. On that basis, I will not be striking the accusation of political bias. SeekTheTruthUK (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors in your latest post on this page, immediately above. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * If you weren't a new user, you'd be getting a longer block. If you continue to speak to other editors in that fashion, you will soon be blocked indefinitely. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC).

It’s okay. I don’t want to be part of such a politically biased site nor do I appreciate being spoken to in the manner in which your so called “editors” do. The pompous twit who you refer to clearly didn’t like being called out for his biased editorial additions to the page in question. If you can’t see that saying, based on 2 non disclosed individuals, that is was “widely” critisied and then removing any edits I added which referenced those members who had a contrary view, then you are just a politically biased as the rest. If you are happy being party to this then continue with you petty “sanctions” if it makes you feel like you’re in control. Happy playing on the internet. SeekTheTruthUK (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Girth Summit  (blether) 09:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The only valid use for your talk page during a block is to make an unblock request. Since you've chosen to use it to repeat your personal attack, I have increased the duration of your block, and revoked access to this page. Girth Summit  (blether) 09:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)