User talk:Truthout88

Art Canada Institute

Hello, I have flagged some concers with your recent addition of a "controversies" section on the Art Canada Institute article. I would suggest that the section is too long and large parts of it are not particularly related to the topic of the article. Some statements seem to be missing substantiating citations, or the citations provided do not substantiate the statement being made in the article (original research). I hope we can work through the concerns and invite you to add join me at the ACI Talk page to discuss.Thiftynine (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all additions. The majority of the content was unsourced, and seemingly unrelated. Most of it referenced the AGO, which is not what the article is about. Additionally, there were copyright violations introduced, and some parts are violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:ARandomName123. I agree with the substance of your comments but am going to attempt a clean-up and retain some of the material that could be justifiable for inclusion in the article. Thiftynine (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Truthout88, thanks for your recent edits, but I think we need to work on this article for the reasons cited. Please do not remove the NPOV and Undue Weight from the ACI article until we've reached consensus. Thanks.Thiftynine (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truthout - not sure if you are aware of this talk page, but we're trying to make some improvements to Art Canada Institute and you are overwriting them without providing opportunity for discussion about the issues. Can we talk about this please? Thiftynine (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that I have included in the section is referenced and cited. These "Controversies" involving Sara Angel and ACT are fact and have been documented by the Globe and Mail and online Arts Publications as you can see in my references. I completely disagree with your opinion that the AGO story has nothing to do with Sara Angel and the ACI. Ms. Angel was a signatory to the racist letter that was sent to the CEO Stephan Jost and artists have called for a boycott on ACI as well. Therefore, this matter should definitely be included in this article. I am happy to try to edit down the section but I stand by what is included. I have provided the link and referenced the email from Massey College that confirms that Sara Angel is indulging in chicanery.

I suspect that ARandomName123 is actually Ms. Angel herself as I'm sure she doesn't want the truth to get out. I note that you removed all of my articles even the article directly linked to ACI "Citing Silencing of Arab Voices, Artists Cut Ties with Art Canada Institute. This is unacceptable. Truthout88 (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that ARandomName123 is actually Ms. Angel herself. I have no relation to Ms. Angel whatsoever. I am still failing to understand why the letter, to which Sara Angel is only a signatory, needs to be given such a large focus in the article. The majority of the content you added is about the letter itself, with little relation to the Art Canada Institute. Furthermore, a screenshot of an email is not enough evidence. We need references to reliable sources, not an unverifiable Instagram post. Removing external links is perfectly normal, as they should usually not be included in the text of articles. See WP:EL. Please cease your edit warring. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it Ms. Angel. A signatory of a vile racist letter targeting Wanda Nanibush for her pro-Palestine views is very important and must be included in this section. Sara Angel is on the Board of Directors of IMAAC and you have the audacity to claim she is "only a signatory"?!.

I have edited the section down. The first letter to the AGO signed by thousands of upset people called out Ms. Angel for the heinous letter and bullying and then called for a boycott of ACI specifically so this must be included. Ms. Angel along with the other 5 signatories forced/bullied the AGO to fire an important Curator or Indigenous Art. This fact is important as it leads to the Hyperallergic article which focuses on Ms. Angel trying to "censor" or bully artists by demanding the artist's work had to undergo a review to make sure they wouldn't offend anyone?!!! I call this Islamophobia and we all know Ms. Angel is racist and she shows a pattern of bullying artists. You took this section out initially eventhough it is directly linked to ACI and you want me to believe you are not Ms. Angel. Please. I just want the truth out!

I suspect Ms. Angel wrote the IMAACletter herself.

Why is the email not good enough? You can call Emily yourself to verify. The email has all her contact information. Truthout88 (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my userpage for proof.

Again, how is the Board of Directors of IMAAC, or the AGO related to this article? In my second reversion, I left the Hyperallergic part in, after it had been modified by @Thiftynine. The email is not good enough because it counts as original research. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Truthout88 reported by User:ARandomName123 (Result: ). Thank you. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will advise them that YOU removed entire Controversies section without even discussing. I will be filing a formal complaint against you. Truthout88 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations and outing

Hello, I just wanted to inform you that accusing an editor of being a specific person is considered harassment, even if you are wrong. It is one thing to ask if someone is connected (via a conflict of interest) to the subject of an article, but it is quite another to insist that they are the subject. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]