User talk:Truthpak9

January 2023
Hello, I'm 331dot. I noticed that you recently removed content from Phil Kent 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. ''Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say. If you have sources that offer other descriptions, please offer them. The SPLC is considered a valid source. Many have tried and failed to challenge that status, if you wish to try, go to WP:RSN.'' 331dot (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth; we only claim the information presented can be verified. See WP:TRUTH. If you are here to be a truth fighter, you are going to have a difficult and likely short career here. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Provide something verifying SPLC having been deemed the authority on what is considered a hate group. Since this is not possible, such reckless opinions should be removed. As you know, SPLC has ironically been accused of promoting hate.  Given as such, why would you allow an individual to be defined by an organization that is being accused of the same thing?  These opinions should obviously cancel each other out and is another reason SPLC should be removed from the Wikipedia entry in the context by which it has been presented.      Truthpak9 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't deem them an authority on anything, they are simply considered a reliable source. You are free to disagree with their claims. You may offer your own sources that provide a different characterization of this individual. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes you do or else you wouldn't use their opinion. What constitutes them being a reliable source? In your world, a reliable source is anyone that thinks the way you do.  Do me a favor and stop using other people's opinions to destroy people and, congratulations, you just participated in creating more hate through the labeling of an individual by association based on an organization's opinion, an organization who's own reputation has been put into question.   Truthpak9 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Um, no, that's not what a reliable source is. It has absolutley zero to do with how I think. Please read about reliable sources here. As I said, if you have reliable sources with a different view, please offer them so we can consider their inclusion. I'd add it myself. You are accusing us of doing what you are doing, wanting sources that fit your views and what you want to hear. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Accusing you of doing what I'm doing? If you look back at my attempted updates, I'm trying to remove (not add) opinionated, subjective and questionable content so that the reader can formulate their own opinions based on the facts.  Where did I attempt to add content from sources to support an opinion that you think I have?  Based on what I've provided, you should have no clue what my opinion is one way or the other and that's the way it should be.  Stop allowing the opinions of "reliable sources" to exist on the platform when the validity of such "reliable source"s have been put into question by other "reliable sources".  Please wake-up and stop the close-minded insanity.    Truthpak9 (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've said above how you can challenge the validity of the SPLC as a reliable source(WP:RSN). You wouldn't be the first to attempt to do so, and it wouldn't be an easy process, but it is available to you. I also again invite you to offer other reliable sources with differing viewpoints. Those are your options, you may exercise them, or not. Good day to you. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)