User talk:TruthBuster21223

Welcome

Hello TruthBuster21223 and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Homosexual agenda, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! User:Mathglot (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Mathglot (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Owen Benjamin, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Begoon 19:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Owen Benjamin. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please strike your comment against me as per WP:NPA. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not strike your comments, I will take this to WP:ANI, which would be the proper place for you file a complaint about my behavior if you felt it was justified rather than casting WP:ASPERSIONS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will strike my comments but I will be updating the Owen Benjamin article with more opinions from Bethany Mandel that I expect you will respect.

Thanks. I think that would be useful. As I said in my talk page comment, I think the information should be attributed and expanded because it seems useful. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Please stop your POV-pushing on Owen Benjamin and please do not make references to me with inaccurate personal attacks on other user's pages, such as here. Your baseless complaint to ANI was already thrown out. Please do not continue this behavior again. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Owen Benjamin, you may be blocked from editing. It seems to me that you were making a POINTy edit just to try and get back at the editor against whom you filed an ANI report that was summarily closed. Please stop doing that. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case. I am very confused. Indeed that user was the one who had reverted all the previous edits. He consistently removes valid and accurate information regarding this person. TruthBuster21223 (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Jlevi. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. I will not let you blackball other editors anymore. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made no personal attacks. Is what you are doing not a personal attack? Fine. Ban me for attempting to put accurate information regarding public figures. I guess the SPLC is no longer valid information. I did not know it was against rules to let another user know that someone consistently removes edits (without naming names). TruthBuster21223 (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. The SPLC is an acceptable source--that is not what any of this is about. Your assessment of that "other editor" is completely incorrect. Your current path leads towards a block (not a ban) for disruptive editing, edit warring, personal attacks, and maybe, if you don't understand what was so problematic about your edits and comments, incompetence. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TruthBuster21223, Please stop undoing my edit to the DLive page. The opening paragraph is focusing on an unfortunate small number of radicals who do not represent the majority of users on DLIVe. After using this platform, I have mostly seen game streams, news stories and information that is otherwise NOT covered by the mainstream news channels. The opening paragraph on wikipedia paints a picture of all white supremacists, anti semite radicals. While these people do unfortunately exist on all social media and media platforms, they are in the minority on DLive and the wikipedia page misrepresents DLIVe as consisting of predominantly these evil people. When i did my edit, i did not remove mention of this, but rather, i added the a sentence to give a more balanced description of what DLive is . As one of the few that donate $ to wikipedia, i do not feel it was appropriate for you remove my edit or list it as possible vandalism. I will be reporting this further in wikipedia and will be sure mention this when I am asked for donations again . Thanks , SubwayRocket (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC) SubwayRocket[reply]

That is incorrect SubwayRocket. Dlive is explicity catering to racists and white supremacists. multiple articls have discussed this in detail. I am sorry you disagree with that fact. Maybe take it up with Dlive and ask them why they allow open and blatant racism. TruthBuster21223 (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing on Owen Benjamin. You are repeatedly reinserting information about a local zoning dispute with inflammatory language into a WP:BLP sourced to two sources that do not appear to have any editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking as part of your single-purpose editing. As per WP:ONUS, you need to use the talk page to find consensus for your change: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not disputed. It is valid and sourced from multiple outlets. TruthBuster21223 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Truthbuster, I swear, the next time I see you throw around "right winger" and bias and nuts and "malicious and hateful reverts" I'm just going to block you on the spot for creating a toxic atmosphere. Stop saying things like that, especially in edit summaries: people years from now might still run into those, and you're giving us all reason to be embarrassed. Do not think that I am joking. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Drmies, I have explained the position many times. My sourced edits were repeatedly reverted without valid reason. What else am I to do? Thanks for your input. I have edited my post, I hope that helps. TruthBuster21223 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand what you're saying but you are just playing this way too much on the man. If you have a point, if you believe you are right and that the sources back you up, then make your case accordingly. Believe me, reverting is easy and often tempting, and so is cussing out another editor, but that can easily backfire. For now your edit stands, but make your case on the talk page, tweak and improve the writing and maybe put that as a proposal on the talk page (as I said to your opponent, base it on the second source and use the first for some additional details that explain the neighbors' concerns), and see if you can't win them over. I will say that the KTV page alone wasn't very strong. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Admins, if you find yourself here in relation to either Owen Benjamin or User:Wallyfromdilbert, please see this. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

I see you have been notified. I think you are heading for a block on David Freiheit. Perhaps as a regular admin action. Possibly as a DS. I see you are editing contentiously on a number of pages, Please rethink your approach. (@Drmies: Thoughts? Advice?) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added the correct info according to agreement on talk page and cited the NYTimes and Washington Post. peoples party of Canada is a far right party TruthBuster21223 (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I see the issue here: Synthesis of material. You're taking information from one source ("X is a far-right party") and from another ("Y is part of party X") and then combine them into something that neither source said. That's not acceptable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about. In your context it would be X is a far right party, Y belong to party X. That is what I wrote. Please review it again. I never said HE was far right. I stated the party was far right as there has been confusion about his political leanings.

TruthBuster21223 (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have misread the diffs. I had found this via WP:RFPP, had a look at the edit history and misinterpreted the situation such as in Special:Diff/1080979420. Describing a far-right party as a far-right party is fine with me. Sorry for the unnecessary interruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care about the content dispute. What is troubling is the edit warring and seeking to have your preferred version protected. Please discuss rather than rereverting. Please remember, no one in an edit war ever thinks they are wrong. We must discuss and seek dispute resolution instead of multi reverts. Sorry I was unclear.. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if there is a pre-existing consensus, cite that in a revert. If they persist, then report them. Just don't keep reverting. Document on the talk page to make it clear why you said what. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{yo}ToBeFree}} I've used up all my brains cells for today. Is there anything else? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same :) Nah. Perhaps WP:ONUS/WP:BURDEN (the onus to gain a consensus for inclusion, and the burden to provide reliable sources, are both on the editor(s) favoring inclusion of the material, not on those objecting to its inclusion). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I look at People's Party of Canada, and the sourcing for the various terms in the lead, it's clear that "far-right" by itself is way too simple; it seems to be a complex matter. User:Springee, does that seem like a fair assessment to you? TruthBuster (and I find that name problematic), this is the kind of thing that should be discussed on the talk page. You have not gained a consensus on the talk page, and since you are being reverted by a number of editors, it seems clear to me that you are edit warring. In addition, the tone of the few messages you left on the talk page are hardly dispassionate and objective, and that makes me think that you did not take the notes about discretionary sanctions seriously. If we put all that together, then yes, User:Deepfriedokra is correct: you are headed for a block. Rethink your approach, please. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I agree. The lead says the party is described as "classical liberal,[15][16] conservative,[17][18] and right-wing populist." Given the range of labels I'm not sure why the PPC article needs to open with right to far right vs any of the other claims but this is wikipedia and we need to be warned that a subject might be on the right side of the spectrum before we read what their positions are. Certainly looking into the body of the article it's more mixed. Also looking at the talk history of the article makes things less clear. Of course the PPC's article page is where those details should be hashed out and put in the text. A BLP page where such complexites can be lost is not the place to cherry pick labels and put them in wiki-voice. Springee (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Asper

I see referred to him as "David." This raises the question of you knowing him in real life. If so, you may have a conflict of interest. It might be best if you refrain from editing about David Asper directly. Instead, you should discuss content and sourcing on article talk pages. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know David. What a wild assumption. I added valid and sourced information with several citations and no value judgment TruthBuster21223 (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I call people I know by forst names. People I am acquainted with, first and last names. People I don't know, any thing from there last names onward. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Freiheit revisited

Please point me to the consensus you spoke of. I may reconsider the need for protection. However, it basically looks like you against the world there. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I cannot find the "agreement on talk page" of which you spoke. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]