User talk:TheUnbiasedLens

February 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Teal Swan. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're going to lie in your edit summaries, we're going to assume it was vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

My apologies if he did not actually say it, I was under the impression he did. Perhaps you can then identify and cite (anybody else or a published article) who has directly referred to “Teal Swan” as the “Suicide Catalyst”. The term seems to be floating around between articles referring to “critics” or “detractors” having said it but with no cited origin. It seems to be propaganda oriented towards sullying her name rather than being a legitimate, post-worthy citation. If you can find the true origin of the title and cite it it would be greatly appreciated, otherwise it should be dismissed and removed.

Aplogy
My apologies if he did not actually say it, I was under the impression he did. Perhaps you can then identify and cite (anybody else or a published article) who has directly referred to “Teal Swan” as the “Suicide Catalyst”. The term seems to be floating around between articles referring to “critics” or “detractors” having said it but with no cited origin. It seems to be propaganda oriented towards sullying her name rather than being a legitimate, post-worthy citation. If you can find the true origin of the title and cite it it would be greatly appreciated, otherwise it should be dismissed and removed. TheUnbiasedLens (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering your first edit summary was a lie to try to hide the fact that you were censoring the article, and your second edit summary wasn't entirely honest either, it's rather hard to not conclude that you're here to advocate on behalf of Swan instead of being here to build an encyclopedia.
 * The cited source explicitly says Her detractors call her the Suicide Catalyst after explaining why. The Guardian is a reliable source that you don't get to move the goalposts so that we have to provide turtles all the way down.  That source is describing and summarizing a documentary.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You put two and two together... you’re obviously very intelligent, good for you... I’m a brand new user working independently with zero experience on wiki. I was hoping to legitimately reverse the overall negative hype on Teal Swan and perhaps post some of her positive contributions to add to the “encyclopedia”. I was unaware of how this all worked, and now I know. Thank you for brining me up to speed on the matter.

Response
You put two and two together... you’re obviously very intelligent, good for you... I’m a brand new user working independently with zero experience on wiki. I was hoping to legitimately reverse the overall negative hype on Teal Swan and perhaps post some of her positive contributions. I was unaware of how this all worked, and now I know. Thank you for brining me up to speed on the matter. TheUnbiasedLens (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You were the one who chose to say that removing reliably sourced information was just 'fixing a typo.'
 * If you want to edit some other topic, I'll be glad to give you a proper introduction. ...But you've given us little reason to trust you with the Swan article. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, it was more of an experiment than anything toying with my new account. Trial by fire, consider me informed. Fortunately for me I don’t need your “trust”, only reputable sources of information. If I had to guess I’d say this particular topic is a personal one for you, I’ll be expecting your watful eye on further posts. Thanks for he warm welcome.
 * I'm not a follower of Swan's, so no, this topic isn't personal for me. We do get a lot of her followers trying to whitewash the article, though, and they're the sort of user who doubts the validity of any source that isn't absolutely positive.
 * If you're interested in editing any other topic, here's a tutorial and here's a guide covering a variety of matters. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)