User talk:Truthsort

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Truthsort! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Mine
That article was already nominated. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * oops sorry i did not see it. Truthsort (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Hey, I'm sorry, but I've declined your request for rollback, mainly because your last request was so recent and I don't see a large amount of vandalism reversion. I'd suggest you install Twinkle- it will revert quicker than undo, it enables you to semi-automatically warn vandals (with a complete index of warnings) and has a few other useful features. It also provides nice detailed edit summaries automatically which makes it a lot easier to see what you've done at a glance. If you install it and spend a bit of time on the recent changes, come and ask me directly on my talk page in a week, maybe 2, and I'll probably grant it. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Fighting
Hey, I noticed you're trying to revert vandalism but have been recently declined for rollback permission. As you are no doubt aware, vandalism is a major problem on Wikipedia, and we need all the help we can get keeping it off the site. Huggle is a powerful tool, but if you don't know what you're doing it's easy to do much more harm than good. If you don't yet have Twinkle, I highly recommend installing it. It has a "Revert Vandal" function that works basically the same as rollback but doesn't require permission. Use this tool to gain experience. To find vandalism more easily, try Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool. This tool automatically searches recent edits for certain words or phrases and then displays them. You can then go to the edit and revert it using Twinkle. For more information on vandalfighting, go to the Counter-Vandalism Unit page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Good luck, and welcome to the vandalfighter forces! --N419BH (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your helpful comments. Truthsort (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Template was used appropriately. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: June 2010
Please read the article discussion for reasons I deleted the post. Emperorubby (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well down the line do not blank portions of an article without discussing it and reaching a general agreement. Truthsort (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sharron Angle
Actually, up to twelve sources have been used for the most controversial issues. Seven sources are not too many, per past consensus. In any case, a long discussion on the talk page got to that consensus. So I reverted your edit. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please enable your e-mail
Please enable your e-mail. I have an important matter to discuss with you. --Deskana (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Pamela Geller
Re: your rv of my edit to the PM article. The material I included was perfectly appropriate and well-cited. As you are apparently a newcomer to Wikipedia, welcome. However, please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia rules and guidelines before making false accusations on people's talk pages, including mine. This is considered bad form. The material I added was indeed well-cited. Stating as I did that her accusations are "controversial", "false" or unsupported is demonstrably true, and your attempt to remove this context from the article is singularly unhelpful to the Wikipedia effort. I trust you will refrain from such attempts in the future. Thank you. Arjuna (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Careful, you're at 2RR already, and if you exceed you will be reported. You need to explain how my edit was "my personal analysis". It is self-evidently true that her statements are "controversial", and that the relevant statements mentioned in the article are "false". I am at 1RR and will revert your rv. I suggest we take this to the talk page to avoid an edit war. Arjuna (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, no it was not appropriate and was not well-cited. The MMfA source is just adding undue weight, especially given that MMfA criticism is already in the article. The Huffington Post source does not indicate false or unsupported comments and the other sources provided are primary sources. You see Arjuna it is all about WP:Verifiability. The brink for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. BTW, 3RR does not apply to removal of libelous and unsourced material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons. Truthsort (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could both of you please take this to the talk page of Talk:Pamela Geller and stop the back and forth edit warring? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, I already did. But thanks, I agree (obviously). Truthsort, I think you are misconstruing the nature of Wikipedia - not every sentence can, or should be cited - that is ridiculous and so surely you aren't suggesting that. As for BLP, I don't think you have much of a case there. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Arujuna, I'm sure you have only the best intentions, but BLP's are treated a bit differently than regular articles, and every sentence in contention in such BLP's must be cited. I would help out, but I find that topic extremely distasteful. Viriditas (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, me and the other user made two reverts, which does not violate 3RR (and even then I was just reverting content that was not verified.) Regardless, the discussion is on the talk page. Truthsort (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Geller
Hi, thanks for the message on my talk page. I appreciate that rather than speaking civilly to another editor, it's more fun to slap a BLP violation template on his talk page and treat him like a vandal. My edit was not a violation of BLP, and I invite you to bring it up at whatever forum will turn you on. Thirdly, you've been easily played by a [|transparent troll]. Cheers. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Goethean, you are the local wikituggee. You think Wikpeidia and it's articles are your personal blog, and any one who edits and challenges you, is a "Joe Hazelton".  Your long history of contentious, and tenuous editing speaks volumes for the kind of thug you are.
 * First off, Goethean, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that says you can't template the regulars, and yes your edit was a violation of BLP as you decided to wikify contentious material in the article. I also advised this ip address to take his differences to Goethean's talk page instead of mine. Truthsort (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See history of Goeathean here...http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/integralcensorship.asp76.203.2.26 (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't make unfounded accusations of other editors, linking off site will not help your case. Best, ValenShephard (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? How about actually looking in this archive and actually reading the discussions before you just show up on my Wikipedia page and somehow suggest that my accusations are "unfounded". Truthsort (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that ValenShephard was replying to 76.203.2.26. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm pretty sure he was talking to me given that I had just posted on a talk page discussion that he was in. Truthsort (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Koch article
I thought your edit to the David Koch article was a good one. The material you added was perfectly appropriate, and thanks! Arjuna (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Mansford RFA
Look at the time stamps closely, it was from almost two years ago. Secret account 18:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As recently as this month, a user accused him of harrassment. Nevertheless, this is a moot point because his adminship is successful.Truthsort (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Rand Paul
I placed in a news item that had four sources. I stand by all my edits, although some may have typos or be too trivial to remain. I agreed with the person who reverted my edit that, while sourced, it probably was too minor a news story to be kept in. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, four unreliable sources... Truthsort (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it gets better: the Rand campaign is trying to cover up dirty tricks, and they were caught red-handed. Are you a concern troll, or a wikilawyer? Bearian (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC
 * I am simply trying to help the Wikipedia project and not hurt it. The content you added was a violation of BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. Truthsort (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries
PLEASE use edit summaries, especially when editing BLPs. They will at least explain why you're removing sourced information. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why all I'm trying to do is reduce the WP:QUOTEFARM that is all. Did you really have to note this on such a minor edit? Truthsort (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't consider this a minor edit. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, "gay affair" should not be wikified to "homophobia", second off, I just removed a quote, and third, the source I provided should not have been removed simply for being a blog. There is no blanket ban on all blogs. Truthsort (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Coons
Hey thanks for putting my edit back in. I think your wording is much better than mine too so thanks for that as well. Dwightschrute1010 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome :) Truthsort (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

James O'Keefe
What was proven false about the 2006 Forum Controversy? Perhaps you could discuss this on his talk page? 12.69.130.210 (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Nir Rosen
Have you read WP:EL? Your recent addition of an external link to this article appears to break this particular rule. Please remove it. Tentontunic (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How does it violate WP:EL? Truthsort (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

O'Donnell
"A Hill Hack Goes Prime-Time Wacko": Hardly a neutral source. And it gives no more detail on his life and career than what is already in the article. You added it simply because it was critical of O'Donnell. The "Baltimore Sun" source is a blog (replete with grammatical errors), not a reliable source. And the Irish Central source does not describe O'Donnell as "focusing a lot of his program on verbal attacks" on O'Reilly; you imposed your own POV interpretation. It's a matter of opinion that he has focused "a lot of is program on verbal attacks": your opinion. In short, you did a bit of POV-pushing, which is OK if most Wikipedians agree with you. So get consensus on the talk page before restoring. Cresix (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "There are a bunch of sources that document O'Donnell criticizing O'Reilly. Given the brief time he has had in the new time slot, the fact that there are quite a few sources on it, indicate that he has used a good portion of his show criticizing him": First you haven't cited anything claiming that O'Donnell is "focusing a lot of his program on verbal attacks" on O'Reilly. And your finding "a bunch of sources" and then concluding that demonstrates an increase in O'Donnell's criticism of O'Reilly is synthesis of material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. You're not a newcomer; I don't plan to go back and forth with you over basic policies. Your edits have been challenged. The burden is now yours to either find sources explicitly stating that O'Donnell is "focusing a lot of his program on verbal attacks" on O'Reilly, or get a consensus. That's the way it works on Wikipedia. Have a good day. Cresix (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "WP:SYN means taking two different things and combining them to reach a conclusion. That's not being done here": It's exactly what you're doing. Nowhere does a source explicitly state that O'Donnell has been "focusing a lot of his program on verbal attacks" on O'Reilly since the timeslot changed. The source says "last week". The time slot didn't change last week. And even if you said, "Last week O'Donnell ...", that's a violation of WP:RECENT. It's you who "doesn't seem to have a full grasp of Wikipedia policies". And one policiy that I don't intend to repeatedly remind you of is WP:CON. This is the last time I'm saying this: find a source that unequivocally (beyond your own conclusions) indicates that O'Donnell is "focusing a lot of his program on verbal attacks" on O'Reilly, or get a consensus. I feel that O'Donnell has displayed some inappropriate behavior on air, and that information is included in the article in a balanced way. But you are stepping over the line continuing to try to push this O'Reilly claim into the article. This article is a BLP and requires a very high standard for sourcing and following policies. Please don't continue to message with me the same lame arguments. It's more than a little obvious you are intent on pushing something critical of O'Donnell into the article. Cresix (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Protest
Regarding why I'm reverting your edit to the Wisconsin protests: Firstly, citing what someone wrote on RedState is not really newsworthy any more than what someone wrote on DailyKos. (And yes, this was covered by CBS, but still... it's like that NYT article citing literally "one person on a blog.") And secondly, there is exactly one news article about this (via google). If perhaps a bunch of newspapers start covering this or similar stories then this might be worth including. As it is, this really isn't newsworthy as is. And I don't feel that the actions of a few supporters are really relevant to the protests as a whole any more than the Indiana assistant Attorney general who wanted the protesters to be shot. Your edit seems to gives undue weight to this. Feel free to respond here. Seleucus (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How is something not newsworthy simply because it was written on a blog? Here are more sources if you want. This is not a violation of undue weight, as this was just a two sentence mention in the article and is not giving that section as much of a detailed view of the protest as the more widely covered events. BTW, there have been more mischievous behavior from these protest. Truthsort (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Political activities of the Koch family
Howdy, I started a discussion on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family related to your recent edits. I'd encourage you to join the discussion. Thanks for the work! --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Noah
You have reverted Joakim Noah 3 times in the last 24 hours. If you revert the edits again, you will be in violation of WP:3R and will likely be blocked. I'd advise you to discuss the issue on the talk page instead of edit-warring.--TM 18:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you bothered to look, but I have given an explanation on the edit summaries. The content is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and User:Arkanian33 readded it without a reason and then reverts making an argument that violates WP:NOTNEWS. Truthsort (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did, but that doesn't mean you can endlessly revert. Read the policy.--TM 01:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner sexting scandal
Gym photos

Hi I am surprised to see you replace this trivia, its been removed again - please open a discussion thread on the talkpage rather than reinset and revert again - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Trivia? You are seriously calling this trivia? Truthsort (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Spencer
Please stop accusing me of "adding" something that I didn't myself. I reverted one change that you made, and once only. A passing glance at the history will demonstrate this. Secondly, I think you're selectively reading the discussions that I referred you to. If it is guilt by association, then you need to demonstrate it. I pointed you to specific comments that describe a reason for specifically leaving in the reference on Spencer's article alone. The wording is also very limited. Perhaps you would like to address these specific points made rather than smugly assert a de facto statement as proof of fact? You need to make an argument in defense of your position, and are in no position to issue an absolute dictum. Again, you might like to review the WP:BLP Noticeboard and reply there.Jemiljan (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik
Could you tell me what your conclusion is on this discussion? It appears that you say that anyone cited in his manifesto should not have it mentioned in other BLPs. However, another user keeps that you think the Robert Spencer article is an exception. Truthsort (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't commented there about specific articles, including Spencer. Jayjg (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you believe, however, that this should be included in these BLPs? It just seems like the conesensus there was not to include, but the user who created section above this one says you did support inclusion and that there is no consensus. BTW, would you consider this canvassing? Truthsort (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at most individual cases in detail, but I haven't stated any specific mentions of Breivik should be included, and in general the consensus is that it's just guilt by association. That does look like a bit of canvassing. Jayjg (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not canvassing - a sharing of common concerns about what appears to be an attempt to impose a consensus that has not been achieved, with an apparently determined disregard of the arguments advanced against the "consensus" position. the repetition of the claim that those opposing the "consensus" are pushing "guilt by association" is offensive and improper. Opbeith (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, I was incorrect about Jayjg's conclusion. It was off2riobob who specifically mentioned not reverting the Spencer page, not Jayjg and I apologize for my confusion.  Nevertheless, the issue that I am addressing is whether Breivik's quotation, mentioned together with Spencer's response, constitutes a assocation fallacy and is in violation of WP:BLP or not.  I believe that if it is carefully worded, refers to reliable third-party sources, and is very brief, that it doe not constitute such a violation. Understand that I am not advocating for inclusion in articles of each and every person that Breivik has mentioned, only this one.  You have continually evaded that part of my argument, Truthsort, and citing a consensus regarding the general mention of Brievik, which I am not advocating, in no way effectively addresses my point.  Jayjg, I have asked you to respond to this specific point on this discussion, which you have yet to do.  I think you are being a bit too sweeping in your consensus, and like Truthsort, you have not addressed my point about allowing for a very specific exception, in a very specific way, with a very specific wording.  Note that I am not endorsing mention of Breivik in general, only when and where the persons so named have publicly addressed the incident.  Finally, I am absolutely not canvassing.  It is very clear that I in no way asked the few individuals contacted to affect a specific outcome. These editors all participated in the last comprehensive overhaul of the "criticism" section, after it was the subject of edit warring and vandalism, and have spent considerable time building consensus before.  That is the only reason that I contacted them, and I have made no attempt to persuade them one way or another regarding the inclusion of any mention of Breivik or support for my position. I merely asked for their input as long-term editors of the page in question.  Jonathan Wallace in particular expended a considerable amount of energy reformatting the page in question a few months ago after a series of incidents comprised of edit wars and vandalism, and the present format was achieved through a carefully achieved consensus. You can observe this for yourself, by looking at the most recent talk archives of the page.  All of this is well within the WP policy that "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Also Jayjg, I note that you have now warned me for edit warring in a 48 hour period, but I find this is bit incredulous, for you have not provided a similar one to Truthsort, who has taken it upon himself to unilaterally revert the article numerous times, claiming that there was some sort of consensus, without actually citing it, and well before one had been achieved. Jemiljan (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Talk Page Sections (Talk:Rick Perry)
Normally we do not remove entire sections of a talk page especially if it contains other people's comments. WP:LINKFARM refers to articles, not talk pages and besides, two links to support an assertion is not linkfarming. Deleting the whole section is proscribed in WP:TALKO.
 * Talk pages are for discussions in improving the article. When an IP address dumps off two links and copies and paste two sentences from one of the articles without anything else written from the IP address, it should be removed. We do not let users dump links in the talk page for the sake of it. Truthsort (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Negative. Please read WP:TALKO "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."}} Veriss (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How about reading the part where is says that talk pages are for discussing improvements for articles and not dumping off links? Truthsort (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Re 'Frontpage Magazine'
I see that you have been inserting multiple templates into articles which suggest that David Horowitz's blog is 'the media'. Given the ridiculousness of the claim, can I ask you to revert yourself - or would you prefer that I took this up elsewhere? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not as ridiculous as calling Moore's films "documentaries", and yes – right-wing media is media too, or shall we narrow RS down to "what suits my own personal world view"? By the way, it's not a blog, it's a legitimate online magazine. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Hello Truthsort, I just wanted to let you know that you are mentioned by myself in this related ANI post. Thanks,  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Army of God
http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data_collections/tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-3ps/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=28 - they are also in our - Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States article - Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that there were no sources that stated that the U.S. federal government has designated it as a terrorist organization. The sources you provided do not say that. Truthsort (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talkpage –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 08:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detail, I just did a quick search and looked for the most reliable looking one, there does seem to be a lot of returns for the search though. I see Mastcell has sourced it now, regards - Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I disputed was the category "Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government". I never disputed that it was generally viewed as a terror organization. Truthsort (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street and Terak Mehanna
I was the one who removed it before, I made a thread on the Talk Page trying to explain why I did, and thought maybe you want to comment. LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sean Duffy
Hi. You were right that the passage you removed from the Sean Duffy article was clearly slanted in a way that violated WP:NPOV, in part because it included information not in the cited source, which also violates WP:V. But if the source is reliable, and does contain valid material that is reasonable to include in the article, then the proper thing to do is rewrite it so that it exhibits a more neutral wording (and remove the unsourced info), and not remove it outright. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we usually do not highlight this stuff outside of links in an external link section. You do not see this in every article on an politician. Truthsort (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Old news just in about Ron Paul
Re: Media coverage of Ron Paul's presidential campaign

News pieces from the last two weeks aren't old, even if they bring up old issues. IHTFP (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to take this to the talk page because you are adding undue weight into the article. You need to prove that this is having an impact on his campaign and is not just minor coverage of material being rehashed. Truthsort (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The New York Times front page is not minor coverage. This is just a double standard. Prove that the Le Monde article is having an impact on his campaign. The fact that the media is revisiting old material is itself noteworthy. Debate about killing the Iowa caucuses is new. IHTFP (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Le Monde article has been removed. There are a lot of things that appear on the front page of the Times. Just because something is newsworthy does not mean that it is significant enough to be mentioned. Truthsort (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Vargas
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Peyton Manning
Please wait for him to actually sign to make edits to the Broncos. Must wait for it be official.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit to Chick-fil-A
I reverted your recent edit. I think you were trying to remove the phrase "Particularly controversial", however, you removed a great deal of other well-sourced content (and citations), which has been exhaustively discussed on the article's talk page. I don't want to make assumptions about your intent, so can I ask that you discuss the actual edits that you wanted to make, on the article's talk page? Thank you &mdash; MrX 20:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake on that. I have fixed it now. Truthsort (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.


 * Thank you! :) Truthsort (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Stranger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for the barnstar! Truthsort (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 Moore tornado, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United Way (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Rand Paul
Howdy. There is a discussion on the Rand Paul Talk Page you may be interested in participating in. PrairieKid (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

BLP
Note that the RickjSerrano twit you used, has been removed by the author: https://twitter.com/RickSerranoLAT. The article is under discretionary sanction (blp), so please be careful with your sourcing when naming individuals in articles. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that. Truthsort (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Request For Comment: 2017 discussion of the 2012 Onion "incident"
Truthsort, I would appreciate you weighing in on this editor discussion. The mention of this trivia was excluded in 2012/3, but a newbie posted it in the article of Congressman John Fleming after he was appointed to HHS even though there is nothing new on this ancient trivia. You can find it at []. Tomuchtalk (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2017 (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.

Your recent editing history at Steve Bannon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

The article is under a 1RR restriction which you violated with these edits.  Volunteer Marek  13:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert : post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people
Doug Weller talk 17:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mia Love, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DACA ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Mia_Love check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Mia_Love?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

May 2018
Your recent editing history at Nick Freitas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Just because you're using a source in a post does not give you license to violate Wikipedia's policies with politically-related articles. Your edits to Nick Freitas blatantly violate WP:POV. Please go to the talk page if you'd like this source to be included in the text of the article.-- White Shadows One eye watching you 00:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Nick Freitas. ''This is the last warning you will receive before I report you to an administrator for violating both WP:POV and engaging in edit warring. You have been warned of this multiple times and it appears your account only exists to push political propaganda of some sort. Wikipedia is NOT the place to do that. '' White Shadows  New and improved! 05:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not commentary or personal analysis. Truthsort (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. White Shadows New and improved! 16:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong DR
Hello, I have brought the unfruitful Sarah Jeong discussion to dispute resolution and am notifying you because you have commented on the Talk page since August 3. You can find a link here: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. All the best, Ikjbagl (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Antifa (United States). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 19:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amy Siskind, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Grifter and Unite the Right ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Amy_Siskind check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Amy_Siskind?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles relating to living or recently deceased people
Doug Weller talk 06:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)