User talk:Truthseeker1001

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to G. Edward Griffin. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Orangemike. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:G. Edward Griffin that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Talk:G. Edward Griffin. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have undone my editing on the page of Edward G. Griffin. After looking at your user page and I have concluded that you are probably a nice and well-intentioned person. I would probably like you when I would encounter you in real life. But in the particular case of the page of Edward G. Griffin I sincerely do not think you are correct.

I will admit that I am new to Wikipedia editing (I have far more experiencing using Wikipedia than editing), so I am struggeling to find the right form, and I appreciate help from more experienced editors such as yourself. That being said, I would like to engage in an open discussion and explain why I think my actions were correct. So please, let us engage in an open, civil and possibly even friendly discussion. I think I can learn something here, and I think you can too.

First, you posted 3 comments in short order om my Talk page:

1) Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to G. Edward Griffin. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

2) Hello, I'm Orangemike. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:G. Edward Griffin that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

3) Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Talk:G. Edward Griffin. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you.

The only thing I did was to revert the page just before User Steeletrap started his/her editing. That is all.

Comment nr. 1)

Therefore, I did not add personal analysis to Wikipedia articles as you state in your comment nr. 1. I repeat: I added nothing to it. The ONLY thing I did was to merely revert it to an earlier page, namely the page that already existed before user Steeletrap started his/her editing.

Comment nr. 2)

I am sorry if I made a remark didn't seem very civil. That was not my intention, and I truly do not want to convey uncivilness. But here is the thing: although I do not know Edward G. Griffin personally, I do know a lot of his writings and his other material. If you check out the alterations that user Steeletrap has made, I really and sincerly thing THOSE edits are slanderous. I am new at Wikipedia-editing, but I am learning. Maybe I should have used another word, such as not NPOV regarding user Steeletrap edits.

But I think I have a very good point. If you look at his/her edits, those edits are not NPOV. And after a little research I found out I am not the only one that thinks so. She HAS been banned regarding articles/pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, and there are other Wikipedia editors that think so to. So I am a little confused, and I don't understand why you are saying to me that I am making an uncivil comment, while user Steeletrap is the one who is making unjust remarks.

The bottom line is this: You obviously know a lot, a lot more about Wikipedia-editing than I do, but it is statistically very improbable that you (or user Steeletrap for that matter) know more about Edward G. Griffin than I do. And I am telling you, user Steeletrap's edits are not OK. Please, I am begging you, bear that in mind.

Comment nr. 3)

Again, the only thing I did was to revert the page just before User Steeletrap started his/her editing, therefore I did not insert "fringe or undue weight content into articles" as you state.

So, those were my comments on the 3 comments you made. User Steeletrap has made it known on the Talk page of Edward Griffin that he/she thinks his views are fringe, so how can his/her views on Mr Griffin be considered NPOV?

I think user Steeletraps views cannot be considered as such. And how can user Steeletraps edits be continued to endure? Especially since she has actually been banned from the pages regarding the Austrian school of economics, a school Edward Griffin adheres to. For the last 5 years, I have been reading about Austrian economics related topics for lets say 10 or 15 hours a week. So I have a really hard time when I see someone like user Steeletrap going about it in the way he/she does. How should I adress these issues, where I sincerely think user Steeletrap is not NPOV?

Again, there is no doubt in my mind that you are obviously a far, far more experienced Wikipedia-editor than I am, and that you are a nice and likable person (I liked your photo anyway), but I think it is highly improbable that you (or user Steeletrap for that matter) know more about Mr Griffin's work than I do. I would be grateful to you if you could answer my questions above.

All the best, and kind regards,

Truthseeker1001

P.S. I got another remark from Wikipedia-editor S. Rich on why my reversion and remark was not optimal. I must say his/her remarks are more helpful. I will follow his/her remarks and do what he/she said. I would still appreciate though, if you could please answer my questions.Truthseeker1001 (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014[edit]

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at G. Edward Griffin, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Specifically, in the edit summary for this change: [1]. – S. Rich (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I understand your remark, and I will read the information you refered to.Truthseeker1001 (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your thoughtful consideration and replies. You'll see that many edits were done on individual items. Two examples, I removed the Certified Financial Planner from the infobox and "libertarian" from the text because the article has no sourcing for this information. I said so in my edit summaries. When you reverted to the prior version, you undid my edits, which were carefully considered and explained. OrangeMike was correct when he reverted your major change. So, now that you've given thought to how Wikipedia works and how Wikipedians cooperate with each other, I am hopeful that you will continue to contribute and enjoy your efforts in doing so. – S. Rich (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will do my best to do so.Truthseeker1001 (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User of the word 'slanderous'[edit]

Please read WP:NLT especially the bit about "perceived legal threats". Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think removing 'slanderous' from the section heading is a good idea. For the text, I suggest striking out the word. Do it like this: <s>slanderous</s> which will produce ~~slanderous~~. – S. Rich (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have read the section Dougweller refered to, and I understand. I have striked out the word as suggested by Srich.Truthseeker1001 (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]