User talk:Truthinpress

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Rees11 (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. If you disagree with the content of an article, you should make comments on the appropriate talk page, rather than placing them in the article itself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have also reverted your edits to Vic Toews, Canada Border Services Agency and (partially) Brenda Martin. These edits addressed the subject in a non-neutral manner generally, made statements that were not supported by the supplied references, and furthermore in some cases may have violated Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Articles should be written objectively, from a neutral point of view. Opinions can be discussed in articles, of course, but these need to be published in reliable sources and must be directly attributed to the person or people making those opinions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why can the truth not be told on this site, who are you protecting? I am confused why you want to sanitize the truth from the public in this forum. What I wrote was the absolute truth and supported clearly by the references, yet you chose to remove the truth from the pages on Wikipedia, why?

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. It is not the place to campaign for the truth. Upon reading the supplied references, I noted that they did not support the statements you made in the article. But even if the references did support the text, it was generally worded in a non-neutral fashion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please check your references to ensure they 1) exist (dead links) and 2) actually say what is claimed (neither Holland nor the article mentions Toews). I've reverted both articles again because of these problems. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but you have to try and understand, an Encyclopedia that talks about the Holocaust and Hitler, necessarily imply he was the main culprit and responsible for it. The reason why is he was the Leader of Germany at that point in time. Well today the Minister of Public Safety is Minister Toews, so one must assume when anyone is critizing that department, they are talking of the Minister, who is responsible for the legislation governing that department. If you are well educated in political systems, this would be obvious to you, but who are you? I do not understand why you feel it necessary to not allow the truth to stand?

Now surely you realize I am not comparing Minister Toews to Hitler at all, however one can not escape responsibility for one's position. It is clearly factual the Minister Toews has not responded, correct? It is clearly documented that Mark Holland said what he is quoted as saying, correct? So how can you fault this story?

Whereas period news and modern historical coverage of WWII connects Hitler intimately with many of the actions of Nazi Germany, the sources you're citing do not even mention Toews. It is unsafe to assume (and contrary to Wikipedia's verifiability policy) that criticism of a department applies directly and equally to the person in charge of that department.

That matter notwithstanding, and even assuming we have a source discussing Toews in connection with the particular incident, we must avoid assigning undue weight to the incident. Wikipedia is not about the truth; it's about what has been said in reliable sources. Of course, we don't want blatantly incorrect information in articles, and where it's clear a source is incorrect it's okay to exercise our judgment. However, pragmatically speaking, the "truth" is a difficult thing to quantify, and always subject to interpretation.

The story itself, I have no opinion on. I am in no position to comment on its significance, nor on how significant it will become. I really suggest trying to talk about this on an article talk page, where you may find other editors with interests in the same subject who can give you some suggestions on where to proceed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not discussing the the "significance" of the story, just the fact it is a story that has been printed in the press. One can verify this by a simple google of Shileen Flynn and the CBSA. However it is criticism by the opposition, which Minister Toews has been quoted as not responding to at all. Therefore, my only point is the story is accurate in its entirety. I am not trying to "make" the story or "invent" a story, I am merely attempting to report the criticism of the opposition against Minister Toews, which clearly they have stated. It is that simple and certainly as significant as the entire article on Minister Toews, which attempts to describe him and his history. It is part of his history and profile and therefore by any casual observer within Wikipedia's regulations to report.

In the other cases you seek to prevent me from stating the truth about, let us face facts Sheraton's Wikipedia article is merely advertising, against the policy of Wikipedia and yet you did not edit or comment on that fact. It seems you are selective and subjective in your assessment. Also Brenda Martin's story was one hundred percent factual and the original Wikipedia article was posted by a news reporter who was later fired for misreporting the incident. In the words of his editor, it was "gawd awful reporting." So you see you are not objective in your editing, you merely seek to disallow that which you personally do not like, as you find it controversial and prefer milk toast being fed to the masses. I do not know as you failed to answer who you actually are or why you have so much interest in pushing your subjective reviews upon articles in Wikipedia. Can you give me a general outline of yourself and your intentions without revealing any personal specific information. Thank you.

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Brenda Martin has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Avoided (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Brenda Martin constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Tomayres (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Brenda Martin. Tomayres (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned about your blatant disruption, and now you have been indefinitely blocked. Please find something else more constructive to do. Regards, –MuZemike 17:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]