User talk:Mikegriffith1

Welcome!

Hello, Mikegriffith1, 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
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

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Doc Quintana (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. Spigot Map 17:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures) please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please cite your sources in your articles especially if editing articles about yourself. Spigot Map 17:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God Bless you...

Thank you for you hard work and everything you did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.20.237 (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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-1932 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.

Doug Weller talk 21:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Mikegriffith1. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Michael T. Griffith, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Michael T. Griffith.jpg

The file File:Michael T. Griffith.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Militarycorruption.com fails WP:RS

by a mile. If you disagree, feel free to ask at WP:RSN where I think they'll tell you the same thing. Oh, you might want to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael T. Griffith .Doug Weller talk 13:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

Please read wp:not, especialy wp:forum and wp:talk. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to article, and not for general observations or comments.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

mikegriffith1 response: That's odd, because many other Wikipedia articles have robust debates about the articles' merits on the Talk page. Face it: You just don't want readers to be alerted to the evidence of serious election fraud or to the fact that this article is horribly biased. user:mikegriffith1

NO it's just that I do not watch every page, but I have said this more than once, this week, on more than one article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debates about article's merits are fine. Debates about the merits of an article topic are not. There is a difference.

If you have any reliable sources that demonstrate election fraud, present them for consideration to add to an article. What you have provided so far are opinions, not reliable, and have been rejected by the courts. The only reliable sources I have seen for election fraud are about Pennsylvania providing solid evidence for it, but that story doesn't align with the unsubstantiated beliefs of the conspiracy theorists. 15:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

mikegriffith1 response: Your reply is nonsense. I was talking about the merits of the article, not the merits of the topic. Compare your article from The Hill to The Navarro Report, which is available on my website on evidence of election fraud (see below).

As for the argument that the Trump election lawsuits "have been rejected by the courts," virtually all of those "rejections" were summary dismissals, and not one of the rejections--summary or otherwise--offered any substantive response to the evidence of election fraud presented in the lawsuits.

For those who are not determined to deny election-fraud evidence, I have created a website that documents that evidence. Here is the link:

[Yes, the 2020 Election Was Stolen: Evidence of Serious Election Fraud in the 2020 Election. https://sites.google.com/view/electionfraudin2020/home]

user:mikegriffith1

No, your reply is nonsense. Reliable sources matter here. You haven't offered any, neither on Wikipedia nor on your website. Suggestions for improvements to the article are welcome, but reliable sources are required, and we cannot engage in original research about the merits of documentation about fraud. A summary dismissal by a court doesn't suggest validity. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces (Talk) for a period of 1 month for using talk pages as forums after warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 16:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IN OTHER WORDS, DON'T BOTHER YOU WITH FACTS -----

My comments were to correct claims made in the article. Gee, I thought the goal was to make articles as accurate as possible. But, actually, your goal is to suppress any observations and facts that don't follow the liberal talking point being presented.

Just like with my comments on evidence of election fraud: I cited sources ranging from a former professor of economics to the chief justice of the Wisconsin supreme court, but these sources were rejected as disreputable and invalid.

Here, I made some factual observations about David Irving, facts that anyone can verify by reading his books and viewing his videos. But, of course, predictably, my comment was removed, even though other people's comments questioned aspects of the article--they just didn't question the central claim that Irving has denied the Holocaust, which he most assuredly and demonstrably has not done.

I doubt that I'll be making any more donations to Wikipedia. The liberal slant is getting a bit tiresome.

[User:Mikegriffith1]

I wish I was paid every time someone said they would stop donating to Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You people are such closed-minded bigots. I thought providing important missing information *was* helping to build an encyclopedia. Gee, I guess not, huh?

This one-sided bias is why so many people view Wikipedia as a joke for a source. Go on discussion boards and see what happens when someone cites Wikipedia. People like you are the reason for that. Mikegriffith1 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]