User talk:TruthSeekerT4C

__NOINDEX__

Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing
It is clear (for example, this edit to Bishonen's user talk page) that you are here at Wikipedia to single-mindedly push a fringe agenda.

You've violated a host of Wikipedia policies, ranging from pushing a fringe minority viewpoint (WP:FRINGE) and applying undue emphasis on that (WP:UNDUE), to using Wikipedia as a battleground (WP:BATTLE) to advance an external agenda (WP:SOAP).

Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy or activism. We're an encyclopedia. We report what other reliable sources (see our Reliable Sources policy) report. We're not a venue for original research (WP:OR).

This indefinite block can be reversed by any administrator if you are able to communicate that you understand the core values of Wikipedia (WP:PILLARS) and agree to abide by them in the future. If unblocked you are welcome to continue discussing and bringing in alternate medical information, if you do so in alignment with our policy and purpose as an information resource.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You can keep your ban. It's now clear that this site is not interested in the truth. I think you guys have the agenda. You will pay for your foolishness when you are living in a world that's not at all nice - a world that you helped create. Thank you and goodbye. TruthSeekerT4C (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Other editors looking at the sources you were inserting have identified that they did not say what you claimed they said. They were referring to other vaccines or other issues.
 * I want to assume that you were acting in good faith, but misrepresenting reference sources is about as horrible a crime as you can do on Wikipedia.
 * Do you simply not understand medicine, or do you have an agenda here beyond your enthusiasm?
 * If you don't understand what you got wrong with the sources, please post here what you think you were reading so that others can review it with you.
 * If you got the sources from another external site and didn't read and understand them fully yourself, please disclose that and take a closer look at that site.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Alex Jones
Just to add.. Alex Jones and Prisonplanet and infowars are in absolutly no way VALID RELIABLE SOURCES. -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)