User talk:Trulexicon

Welcome!

Hello, Trulexicon, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Tom 01:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Larry Sanger. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. —C.Fred (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 24 hours for repeated edit warring. When you return please engage in more attempts to discuss the matters and not simply blindly revert. JoshuaZ 13:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You were repeatedly editing warring and were warned. 3RR is not an entitlement. JoshuaZ 13:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comments at User talk:QuackGuru

In your edit summary here, you mentioned that it is "against wikipedia policy to delate content from one's own talk page". In fact, the opposite is true. Per WP:USER, "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages..."

I'm going to caution you to take care when quoting policy to other users, especially those with whom you are involved in content disputes. Caknuck 15:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to keep that in mind.--Trulexicon 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

repeated BLP violations added to Larry Sanger article

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people. [1][2][3][4]  Mr.Guru  talk  23:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

He was Reared NOT raised....--Trulexicon (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The word reared is not clear. Raised is clear and easy to understand. The word reared can be confused with raising an animal.[5]

Co-founder is heavily referenced per WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:ATT policies. There are also historical references such as The New York Times reference.[6] Quack Guru 18:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing pattern

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you to adhere to the neutral point of view and disruptive editing policies for editors, which it appears you have not followed in your edits to Larry Sanger and Wikipedia article. Please use the talk page to gain consensus among editors. Thanks, Quack Guru 18:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, the quacker there seems to think I'm you.[7] I reckon squeakbox & slimvirgin & the many other editors who take exception to his complete disregard of npov policy are all you too. Wouldn't be a bit surprised if the quacker and bramlet are sock-buddies though. No reply please, am retiring again now that I've had a refresher course on wiki-nonsense. 65.96.171.231 (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Failed...<Shakes Head repeatedly> this article is one of the most poorly written articles I have encountered here.--Trulexicon (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This comment was inappropriate and uncivil. The article did not fail. It passed. Please consider deleting it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the disruptive comment. Thanks for your understanding, I hope. QuackGuru (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This edit was marked as minor but was not a minor edit. QuackGuru 05:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

nice

It is nice to see you edit others articles unrelated to the co-founder isssue. Take a look at the Quackwatch article and feel free to jump into the debate. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful! I like it you are expanding your horizons. The chiropractic article is great for the both of us. Please contribute to the talk page if you like. I like to know your expert opinion. Thanks for your contributiuons. You are very much appreciated. QuackGuru (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you return soon and help with the chiropractic article. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in participating in other articles such as chiropractic. You can give it a try. QuackGuru 05:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Nice to see you are back from your vacation. When you edit, please read the references and edit according to the sources presented. Assistant founder is WP:OR. QuackGuru 05:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You appear to be engaging in edit war at Larry Sanger. Please be careful not to make more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period or your editing privileges could be revoked. QuackGuru 05:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Its not an edit war, its an attempt at compromise with an eye toward Jimbo's side. --Trulexicon (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

How is "an eye toward Jimbo's side" NPOV? QuackGuru 05:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really if you wish to be technical (NPOV is very subjective). Jimbo founded this website though: his servers helped start it up and he had the capital and the innovation behind the start up. We should consider his side of the story first and formost.--Trulexicon (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Why should we consider his side of the story first and formost when we should editing according to the references and NPOV. QuackGuru 06:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Because he's the Godking--Trulexicon (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Where in Wikipedia policy does Godking fit into the picture here. QuackGuru 06:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well its his servers basically; I've heard the term used before--Trulexicon (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We edit according to policy and not who you think is the owner of this place. According to what source it is his servers anyhow. QuackGuru 06:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

They belong to the foundation now but I remember reading somewhere when they started this project it was his servers. --Trulexicon (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Thanks for accepting my invitation to edit chiropractic. I have a quick question. Where in the source does it support the claim tends to focus. QuackGuru 05:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Tends sounds like a good word because there are chiropracters who believe in alternative medicine.--Trulexicon (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

But where in the source does it support the claim of "tends" to focus. QuackGuru 06:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere that I seen (having read the article fully) --Trulexicon (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You made a change without reading the references first. Is that about right? QuackGuru 06:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but its not like I'm an expert on Chiroparctic medicine though; I little about the fuckin science.--Trulexicon (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)