User talk:Truthtalkstruth1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Truthtalkstruth1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Stalking
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the edits and reverts you have made on Stalking. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cailil  talk 22:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Although you have not technically violated the 3 revert rule within 24 hours, users are prohibited from edit warring. You are currently engaged in an edit war at Stalking. Please reconsider your current course of action.  We prohibit edit warring as it clogs up the history function with the same repeated edits (read WP:3RR for more on this).  Also as you are new to the site it might be best for you to read WP:5 to get to grips with the policies are guidelines that govern how people behave on site and what gets added to articles-- Cailil   talk 22:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User Cailil et al - I am not in breach of any Wikipedia policies for the facts I have stated. Clearly you are not neutral as you are repeatedly deleting perfectly valid and verified relevant comments. I do not know how Wikipedia works but your continual harassment of my edits by repeatedly deleting them is very worrying. Please explain yourself before I report this matter further and please state your personal interest in both falsely claiming that I have breached any policies and why you continually deleting fact which contribute to a neutral duscussion, and not a one way bias discussion. Truthtalkstruth1


 * Truthtalkstruth1, I'm sorry but you're edits to Stalking are violating a series of policies. I have already advised you to stop reverting on that article. Since then you have made 2 reverts in a continued edit-war. You have already been warned that the content is original research and in violation of the neutral point of view policy. Please reconsider your actions. If you don't understand how this site works I suggest you listen to the warnings and comments of others. Stop reverting and take the time to acquaint yourself with our core polices and behavioural guidelines as expressed at WP:5. Please be 100% clear, edit warring is a serious breach of site rules and will be prevented by blocking if necessary.  Also, claiming or assuming that other editors are acting in bad faith is another serious breach of policy. We demand that editors assume good faith of fellow contributors while working on this site, failure to comply with this policy (called WP:AGF) will also result in the blocking of an account-- Cailil   talk 21:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To Cailil et al: Wiki policies state that "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Do not edit apparent mistaken homophone contractions in comments of others. One may only ask the poster what they meant to say.  Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection"  I am not in breach of any policies, you keep making up new policies that I am apparently in breach of - I contebd that it is you is in breach of policies for repeatedly deleting my comments which has the effect of ensuring that the Stalking page is not neutral - is it just a list of bias unfounded, unverified, ill-researched comments. Truthtalkstruth1
 * You are quoting a policy that refers to talk pages. The article on Stalking is not a talk page, and reverting or removing material that violates policy is a normal part of the editing process. Please read BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and post in support of your edits on Talk:Stalking rather than continuing to edit war. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Truthtalkstruth1, this is your 3rd warning. You have been making the same kind of edits to the Mobbing and Paranoia articles. Also, as MrOllie correctly pointed out above, you were quoting talk page guidelines. The edit you made to paranoia reinserted original research - please do not do this again. Original research is a breach of one of teh core rules of this site: "No original research. Breaking that rule is a serious issue. Also be very very clear Truthtalkstruth1 I am not involved with you in away in a content dispute - others might be but you should be discussing changes with them rather than confusing me for them. Again, please reconsider your course of action - I suggest reading WP:5 to get a fuller understanding of how this site works and what its rules governing content and behaviour are-- Cailil  talk 17:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability/reliable sources policy
Please re-read WP:V and WP:RS, and the comments above. -- The Anome (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for For breaching site pollicy on revert warring on Mobbing, Stalking and Paranoia over the period August-September 2010.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. Cailil  talk 18:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You clearly have failed to read what an edit war is before requesting unblock. Because Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS, you must obtain consensus for your edits. Indeed, we have what is called the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If you make an edit and it is reverted, you MUST then use the talkpage to gain consensus - there are no if's because you supposedly hold the WP:TRUTH. As you clearly took part in an edit war, and thus acted against consensus, you now have a few days to better read and understand these key policies. As already advised, see also WP:NOTTHEM ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Also for the record I have not reverted or in any other way engaged in a content dispute with this user. They were warned and blocked by me - that is all-- Cailil  talk 21:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, User Cailil, and others have repeatedly deleted my edits, by deleting them all. Each of the edits I made included links to publically available information from reputable sources, thise sources being an international newspaper, a psychology journal, and a British Government survey. Those same administrators and users then repeatedly deleted my well sourced, independent and verified edits and then when I attempted to re-instate them I was warned by User Cailill and then blocked. If Wikipedia administrators have any credibility they would be able to see my clearly my referenced edits and re-instate them. User Cailill (and others) must have political or other reasons why they responded in the way they did. Wikipedia editors should take care of their product lest it turns itself into a source of information which is censored by the poltically correct activists.(Truthtalkstruth1 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC))

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using a sock-puppet account to block evade and continue edit-warring. Please see: Sockpuppet_investigations/Truthtalkstruth1. 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. Cailil  talk 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not wish to be unblocked - the behaviour of the administrators on here is appalling, and I believe politically motivated so clearly not neutral. If such behaviour of the serial deletors is typical on Wikipedia then it renders Wikipedia worthless, and so I wish to have no further part. There should be a way for users such as Cailil, MrOllie and others to be blocked from disrupting the independence and neutral point of view, has anyone else had similar experiences with censorship by adninistrors and serial deleors of independent, verfified well sourced information?


 * I've fixed your formatting error, which was preventing the bottom of this talk page from being visible. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You've made another formatting error that prevents your request from being reviewed. But since your request still doesn't take responsibility for your own choices, there is no chance that anyone will unblock you based on it, so I've left the error in place.  If you want to find and fix it yourself, you're welcome to do so. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)