User talk:The Impartial Truth

Welcome!
Hello, Wolfenstein3D, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Moonraker (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Important alert (discretionary sanctions notification) regarding pages and edits relating to Eastern Europe
Neutralitytalk 03:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Important alert (discretionary sanctions notification) regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people
Neutralitytalk 03:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at RT (TV network). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart News
Hi, The Impartial Truth. Why are you threatening people with "an immediate block" in this edit summary? You are not an admin, and can't block people. Also, the issue of whether Breitbart New is far-right or merely conservative has already been amply discussed on the talkpage, and there is consensus for far-right. You are the one who needs to go to talk to try to form a new consensus, if you wish to change the article. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC).
 * I made an error with that edit, I meant to direct the message @Campbell301 and not @DrFleischman. Campbell301 changed "Far-Right" to "Conservative" without consensus. DrFleischman undid his edit which was aganist the consensus. I had two edit windows open and did not intend for the first one to be published (an error I immediately rectified). My intention was to merely add a word to a different part of the article unrelated to the "Right-Wing/Conservative" issue. It was also a quote from an admin regarding changing the "Far-Right" term, not a threat.The Impartial Truth (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, all a misunderstanding. Happy editing. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC).

Discretionary sanctions alert - American politics
Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice
Alexbrn (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Robert W. Malone. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Important Notice
–– FormalDude  talk  23:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

April 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on White-blue-white flag. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —  Ætoms  [talk] 14:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

May 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kievan Rus'. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Since you are warning others for edit warring whilst edit warring yourself. TylerBurden (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Discretionary sanctions alert for Eastern Europe and the Balkans
—Michael Z. 12:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove a section at Lying press?
Hi, The Impartial Truth. Please use explanatory edit summaries. Removing a well-referenced and relevant section from an article, as you did here at Lying press, would need a proper explanation. Invoking WP:NPOV says nothing. So what was your reason for the removal, please? Bishonen &#124; tålk 19:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC).
 * I note you haven't even cared to provide a reason when asked. I'll have to assume it was simply IDONTLIKEIT and tendentious editing, then. Please edit more neutrally, provide explanatory edit summaries, and be prepared to explain dubious actions when asked, or you're heading for a sanction. Another question: Who are you calling "stooges of the SPLC and related advocacy groups" here? If you don't answer this either, I suppose I'd better assume you're talking about fellow editors. Bishonen &#124; tålk 19:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC).
 * That is what my opinion is and I voiced it in the talk section of an article. Not an article itself. That is allowed as it does not violate any rules. See No personal attacks. You cannot delete that comment as I do not name or imply any editor is what I described. Now, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the WP rules before attempting to limit their freedom of thought. The Impartial Truth (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You really think Bishonen doesn’t understand our policies and guidelines? And if you think that was a personal attack, go to WP:ANI and see what happens. You were clearly talking about editors, albeit unnamed. And of course showing a lack of good faith. I see you avoided answering the question about Lying press. Doug Weller  talk 17:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * NPOV on Lying press. I don't think it was an attack. You are not paying attention Doug Weller. The Impartial Truth (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Why don't you show me the comment and the rule it breaks. This comment you put on my talk page lacks context. You should know better as an administrator. The Impartial Truth (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Acroterion wow, 3 Admins who don’t understand. Doug Weller  talk 18:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm asking so I can understand. Show me please Doug. You imply the administrators are superior in their understanding. It should be your duty to help users understand, not demean them. The Impartial Truth (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Welcome to my talk page! I am an administrator here on Wikipedia. That means I am here to help." This is a quote from your talk page Doug. The Impartial Truth (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:FREESPEECH. Talkpages aren't fora for individual editors' views on organizations they appear to dislike, and Wikipedia isn a forum for free speech or expression. It's an encyclopedia.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 18:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No Doug, I have no interest in abortion nor have I ever edited a topic on abortion. If you continue this harassment I will need to involve some other administrators. The Impartial Truth (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is basically an automatic message based on specific articles and is nothing more than a notice message. Just read the notice and it tells you specifically It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.  It's only to make you aware of specific additional rulesets with regards to certain articles.  Administrative notices are not harassment, and you're not going to find a single administrator who would see it as such. Instead of claiming harassment, you could just read the notice and be done with it.  If it doesn't apply then it's nothing to be concerned with.   Butler Blog   (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Impartial Truth This applies to all pages, not just articles, and you can’t deny you actually raised the topic of abortion when you wrote “ There's a litany of groups that oppose abortion but never are they labeled hate groups solely for opposition to abortion. The Impartial Truth (talk) 7:13 pm, Today (UTC+1)”. That qualifies as an interest.  Doug Weller  talk 19:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What is this? I'm telling you I have no interest in abortion and a reply to a reply in a talk section about the SPLC labeling a type of group a hate group is patently not an interest in abortion. This does not even by a stretch hold up to any reasonable standard. In all I have ever written on Wikipedia the word abortion was never used once before today. This is targeted harassment by an authority. I am requesting a non-involved and not partial admin to review the actions of Doug Weller. I will do so formally as well.  The Impartial Truth (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely unacceptable behavior for an administrator. The Impartial Truth (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There's more going on than just this simple superficial notice. This notice falls into a pattern of harassment that will be included in my complaint.
 * "Harassment can include actions which are expected to be noticed by the target and clearly meant to target them, where no actual conversation (talking or writing) takes place."
 * This notice alone would normally be benign but here it was especially placed for me to notice and know the administrator of Wikipedia Doug Weller is watching me when compared with other actions and comments. The Impartial Truth (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am requesting a non-involved [...] admin... — non-involved admin here. Nothing wrong with the above message, and seeing just how many discretionary sanction alerts you've had, I would have thought you'd be used to the wording by now... go find something else to do. — TNT (talk • she/her) 21:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Apparent vandalism warning with abortion
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Transgender genocide. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Regarding: []

In light of the warning above: this edit related to Jews and Abortion is clearly unrelated to the article topic and thus appears to be vandalism.

ProfGray (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism warning and gender
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Transgender genocide, you may be blocked from editing.

You used a misleading edit summary, "(revert vandalism)," and inserted a hyperlink to Pedophilia at this edit: diff

Your edit appears to violate the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality decision, which has potential sanctions. ProfGray (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * In addition, you made an edit that was reverted (not by me) as "transphobic vandalism"
 * Here's the diff for that vandalism ProfGray (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)