User talk:TheologyAnswers

Yasir Qadhi, Personal Attacks and Reliable Sources
I would like to address various personal attacks that you have made in recent edit summaries which attempted to justify unconstructive edits to the page Yasir Qadhi as well as inform you of site policy, so as to help you to contribute positively to the project.

You have used unfounded accusations that I am attempting to shield or protect the subject of the article from valid criticism and referred to me as a "pornographic editor", apparently attempting to imply that any criticism of your actions which are clearly in breach of Wikipedia's rule on etiquette and sourcing are in bad faith and coming from an immoral, untrustworthy editor.

My personal opinions on both Qadhi and Pornography are not relevant to this discussion but since you have made them a point of contention I will share them. I think Qadhi is a stooge and a coward who consistently stumbles over words and makes intentionally dishonest or misleading statements. I agree with your assessment that the relevant content is both a "controversy" and a "scandal" and despite your commentary to the opposite, am well aware that Mr Qadhi has called it one himself.

I also personally believe the issue is relevant to encyclopedic discussion of Mr Qadhi.

In addition despite your portrayal of my edits to articles related to pornography as being proof that I am some sort of sleaze or pervert, I would like to let you know that I infact despise pornography, and see it as a great moral and social evil with countless negative effects on both the individual and the society. Of course even if I was some loser with an unhealthy obsession with pornography that would not be relevant to this discussion in any way shape or form as my personal views are not relevant to the quality of my contributions without evidence that they have impacted the neutrality or relevance of my edits, especially on an entirely unrelated article.

It is these baseless assumptions which are chiefly responsible in my opinion for the lack of care or attention from many editors to the portion of Wikipedia dedicated to these topics which results in an oversized low-quality section of the project composed substantially of industry blotter and articles and information which fails notablity standards instead of genuine encylopedic coverage because no one will touch the topic with a fifty foot pole, It is infact one of the reasons I am currently editing outside of a registered account. Perhaps you will notice that many of my edits in this Wikiproject consist of the trimming of undue fancruft.

Despite holding these views I try to edit in as neutral a way as possible as I humanly can. This means not intentionally allowing my personal feelings to get in the way of Wikipedia guidelines. Should Yasir Qadhi's "Hole In The Narrative" scandal be addressed on his Wikipedia page? In my view, certainly. But the information has to be sourced to media considered reliable to maintain site quality standards.

You have routinely failed to do that. If you doubt me and want to continue to deflect my argument based on your view of my character you can read these very helpful pages on user guidelines and see for yourself at Reliable sources and Assume good faith and Disruptive editing. 101.53.217.249 (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns
Hello, I'm Pokelova. I noticed that you changed the personal pronouns of an individual in the article Sam Brinton‎. Wikipedia refers to all people, including transgender and nonbinary people, by the pronouns they have most recently requested for themselves; this applies to all phases of their lives, unless they have requested otherwise. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Pokelova (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
Hello, I'm Autarch. I noticed that you recently removed content from Russell Brand without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Autarch (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and vandalism
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Britain First. Please stop wasting everybody's time while we wait for you and your sockpuppet to be blocked. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello DanielRigal,

I noticed your recent comment on my talk page regarding the removal of content from the Britain First article. I'd like to engage in a constructive discussion about this matter to reach a consensus that aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines.

My rationale for removing the term "fascist" from the article's introduction was based on Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. It's essential to ensure that all statements in articles are neutral, verifiable, and based on reliable sources. In this case, the term "fascist" lacked proper citations and could be seen as introducing bias.

I am open to discussing this issue and reviewing reliable, verifiable sourcing that supports the characterization of Britain First as "fascist." If such sources exist, we can work together to include them in the article.

Furthermore, I would like to highlight Wikipedia's policies on edit warring and dispute resolution. Edit warring is discouraged, and I believe it would be more productive to seek consensus through discussion on the article's talk page.

I look forward to your response and a productive dialogue that ensures the article maintains Wikipedia's high standards of neutrality and verifiability.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

September 2023
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Britain First. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. —  Newslinger  talk   02:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi TheologyAnswers, in Special:Diff/1176642250, you indicated that you were aware of the policy against edit warring, which includes the three-revert rule that you continued to violate on the Britain First article afterward. Please remember that Wikipedia policies apply to all editors, including yourself. Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   02:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

TheologyAnswers (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Formal Response to Accusations of Sock Puppetry and Bias
I am writing to address the recent allegations of sock puppetry and bias that have been brought to my attention in relation to my contributions to the Wikipedia page on Britain First. In light of these claims, I wish to provide context, clarify my position, and emphasize my unwavering commitment to Wikipedia's core principles.

Shared Interests and Collaborative Editing (wp:COEDIT)
Wikipedia serves as a platform for users with shared interests to collaboratively edit articles on subjects of mutual fascination. In my case, I possess a genuine ardor for specific topics, which has naturally led me to participate in the improvement of articles pertaining to those subjects. It is crucial to underscore that this shared enthusiasm should not be misconstrued as evidence of sock puppetry, but rather as a manifestation of our collective commitment to particular areas of knowledge.

Accusations Stemming from Disagreements (wp:NPOV)
It is essential to recognize that these accusations appear to have their roots in differences of perspective and content disputes. Disagreements among Wikipedia editors are not uncommon and are expected to be resolved through constructive discussion and adherence to Wikipedia's consensus-building process (wp:CONSENSUS). Regrettably, in this instance, it seems that allegations were made without substantial evidence and may have been influenced by disparities in viewpoints.

Pledge of Cooperation and Transparency
I wish to reiterate my unwavering commitment to cooperation and transparency. I stand prepared to fully cooperate with any investigations or inquiries that Wikipedia administrators may deem necessary to validate my claims. I harbor no secrets and hold a firm belief that a meticulous examination of my editing history will exonerate me from these allegations. I pledge to provide any information or clarification requisite for addressing these concerns.

Unwavering Good Faith Contributions (wp:GOODFAITH)
Throughout my tenure as a Wikipedia editor, I have consistently made contributions in good faith, guided by the overarching objective of enhancing the quality and accuracy of articles. I have vigilantly adhered to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (wp:POLICIES) and have never harbored any intention of engaging in disruptive conduct or violating these policies.

Respect for Wikipedia's Guidelines
I underscore my profound respect for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am fully cognizant of their pivotal role in upholding the integrity of this invaluable resource. I have rigorously endeavored to comply with these regulations and hold no intentions of deliberately transgressing them.

In Closing
In summation, I firmly assert that I am not engaged in sock puppetry on Wikipedia. The alignment of interests among users and my unwavering cooperation with any investigative procedures are testament to my dedication to the principles that govern the Wikipedia community. I am confident that a scrupulous review of my contributions will corroborate their good faith nature and their alignment with Wikipedia's stringent standards.

I humbly request the Wikipedia community to consider this formal response, bearing in mind the gravity of the allegations against me. I believe that an impartial assessment will reaffirm my innocence and permit me to continue contributing positively to Wikipedia.

I extend my gratitude for your kind attention and consideration.

Respectfully,

TheologyAnswers TheologyAnswers (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Response to Allegations Arising from a Disagreement
I believe it is essential to consider the context surrounding the accusations made against me. It appears that these allegations may have emerged from a disagreement between myself and User:DanielRigal on certain Wikipedia articles. While disagreements are a natural part of the collaborative editing process, it is essential to address them through constructive dialogue, adherence to Wikipedia's policies, and a commitment to resolving content disputes in good faith (wp:DR).

Differences of opinion and perspective are not uncommon on Wikipedia, and it is crucial that they are managed with a commitment to Wikipedia's core principles, such as neutrality and consensus-building. Accusations of misconduct should not be used as a means to stifle dissenting voices or to gain an advantage in content disputes. Such actions go against the spirit of Wikipedia and its guidelines.

I remain dedicated to engaging in meaningful discussions and working collaboratively with fellow editors to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles. I hope that these allegations can be resolved through a fair and impartial process that upholds Wikipedia's values and principles.

Sincerely,

TheologyAnswers TheologyAnswers (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)