User talk:Truthitmatters

Welcome!

Hello, Truthitmatters, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Creep Catcher, 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. Chris vLS (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may find more here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

why do my edits continue to get undone, I redid my cites based on the first removal to prove they were legit Please help me with... I have spent endless hours researching this group and most of what is on wikipedia is false without cites I have been accused of being non neutral I only edited the parts that where either a unverified, or reported in the media as being false

Truthitmatters (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BRD. When your edits get reverted, it's time to explain the rationale for those edits on the article's talk page and to discuss with the other editor. Huon (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not allowed to respond in the talk page some error came up what I had said was that the page was misleading and one sided. Creep Catchers are not a non for profit organization they are not registered anywhere, there is no physical location or business associated with it, there whois information is either private or falsified one is for a rowing company in Edmonton and most use false names. They have been involved in illegal activity as outline by one of my sources and many have been charged with other crimes. They lied about their involvement with police. I only added or corrected information gathered from legitimate news sources. Please helpTruthitmatters (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you had trouble with the talk page. Here is some feedback on your edits to help in the meantime...

All statements in Wikipedia need to be supported by a reliable, independent source, like a book or a newspaper. When lots of reliable sources disagree, then we take a neutral point of view and present both sides. (You can read more about reliable source and the neutral point of view).
So, for example, when you labelled the group a vigilante group, without quoting any source, that is going to get reverted every time. Moreover, we would only use such a charged word if the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources used that term. Otherwise, we might describe who has labelled them vigilantes and describe the controversy.
Some of your edits were unclear, in particular, your edit about the police department seems to say that the police are not allowed to use evidence. At all? Ever? Or do you mean the evidence that the group collects? (If so, you should probably state that in its own sentence.) Most importantly, what is your source for this statement?
Your section on different terminology appears misplaced. It doesn't connect to the rest of the article, and discusses a different case.
You quote a source saying that the group may be distributing child pornography. You cannot make such an accusation in Wikipedia without a reliable source. The article you cite is confusing and in a very small paper. I don't think it would qualify if it were your only source.
Some of your edits simply quote the opinion of single commentators. In general, it is better for the encyclopedia to report the impact and reaction to the group, rather than list opinions. When these opinions are about serious allegations, they need to be backed up by reliable sources. When it's just 'this source called them creepy,' that doesn't need to be in the encyclopedia.
You rely on the Blackfalds Life source for a lot of these assertions. I have to say, it seems a pretty poor source. Besides being confusing and poorly written, the newspaper is involved with some of the parties in the story. I would recommend you find other sources.

Thanks. Chris vLS (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can add additional sources how would I find the original author as much of this page was created with out reliable sources? The vigilante group was already a tag at the bottom of the tag So how did this even make it up here? I do not think the globe and mail, national post, cbc, blackfalds you may have a point but there was a Q&A with a lawyer but could find many sources where police deny them being helpful but do only encourage tips in fact I think one of the notable stings was found to be falseTruthitmatters (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To note that some of your edits are being caught by the spam blacklist, as they use urls that are problematic in that they are redirects, or they are domains that considered abused. Trying to add a swathe of urls in a single edit can cause issues for an editor if the sources are not the most reliable. Maybe consider small part editing, or consider using a page in your user space as a sandbox. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Truthitmatters, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Truthitmatters! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Doctree (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Truthitmatters! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 05:10, Friday, December 9, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge