User talk:TheOneWhoSpeaksTruth

November 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The filter log belies your unblock request. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 17:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You appear to be on Wikipedia to do one thing: to malign a living individual. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Hastert's offenses are amply documented in the article, including in the lead paragraph, so nothing is being whitewashed. Wikipedia does not exist for shaming or to place a scarlet letter on people, and does not characterize an individual for criminal conduct unless that is the only thing for which they're notable. See the biographies of living persons policy and the policy for those accused or convicted of crimes.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

"The filter log belies your unblock request." - What do you mean?

"You appear to be on Wikipedia to do one thing: to malign a living individual." - You cannot be serious. That individual raped a child! And you call me a maligner for telling the truth? You, Sir, are maligning me!

"Wikipedia does not exist for shaming or to place a scarlet letter on people, and does not characterize an individual for criminal conduct unless that is the only thing for which they're notable." - Why are you making things up? The page Biographies of living persons doesn't state any of these things you are saying. Please, stop making your own rules. Anyway, even if what you are saying was true, Malcolm Smith, Marc Collins-Rector, John du Pont, Ludwig Fischer and MANY other individuals are characterized for their criminal conduct here on Wikipedia while it's not the only thing they are notable for. What is so special about Hastert that he cannot be described for what he is? What is so special about people who try to tell the truth about him that they have to be permanently banned? --TOWST (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If you responded that you planned to tread carefully and to abide by policy and consensus, there would be a good chance that you could be unblocked. I will note in passing that experience has taught that users who are here to tell the "truth" as indicated in their usernames tend to have motivations that are distinct from overall benefit to the encyclopedia. If you look at the history of the article on Hastert, you will see that it has been the target of a great deal of vandalism, and that inclusion of Hastert's offenses in the lead sentence has been consistently rejected by many other editors. Please describe you overall goals in editing Wikipedia - apart from featuring Hastert's offenses in the first sentence, what do you want to do on Wikipedia? Whether or not other examples exist, it is not an argument for doing more of it. You are not permanently banned, you are blocked until we can see whether you understand Wikipedia policy and whether or not you simply here to shame people.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * As you are continuing with the same problematic behavior here on this talk page, I have revoked your ability to edit this too - and I edit conflicted with Yamla in declining your unblock request, above. If you wish to make a new unblock request, please see WP:UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a note that any admin is welcome to reinstate your talk page access without needing to consult me if they believe that would be a good idea. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)