User talk:Truthteller3031

July 2021

Hello, I'm GreaterPonce665. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Fiona Shaw have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 04:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Femi Oluwole. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 04:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chibundu Onuzo. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 04:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello, I'm Tacyarg. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wolverhampton Grammar School have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have no connection with the person or her company.

I saw her on Masterchef on BBC TV. I’ll add the original info, but not the bit about the company. Truthteller3031 (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit to Helen Lewis as the article already says that her school was independent. Tacyarg (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your message.

I would imagine you probably are a native English speaker? So would easily understand the term ‘independent school’,

However, for sake of clarity for all people viewing this Wikipedia entry all over the world, whose native language may not be English, it’s very important clarity is maintained.

Therefore, it would seem clearer to state the person was privately educated at a independent school. This is very important when learning about the person and their background. Truthteller3031 (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Melcous (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Benedict Cumberbatch. Notfrompedro (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for your message.

I’m sorry I don’t fully understand your message.

I’m adding factual information about people on Wikipedia and where they were educated.

If they were educated privately this is important to acknowledge in terms of their personal privilege. The vast majority of people in the world are not so fortunate to have the benefit of a private education.

Therefore, I don’t recognise your term ‘malicious editing’.

I would be grateful if you could explain why you are taking this negative position in terms of judging my integrity.

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Truthteller3031 (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry I don’t understand the message I have received.

Please explain why actually adding factually correct information about someone attending a private school is ‘malicious editing’? Truthteller3031 (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned and reverted repeatedly that your edits violate WP:NPOV. It appears that your only purpose here is to reveal "personal privilege". Please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as your edits are disruptive. Notfrompedro (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I’m sorry I don’t under how stating a fact violates the neutral point of view? Please explain. The point about personal privilege is also factually correct. Truthteller3031 (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are insinuating that their educational background gave them a leg up in their career. Without a reference explicitly saying so this is WP:OR and it violates WP:BLP. You have provided zero references that their education privileged them in the rest of their lives and therefore your editorial bias violates WP:NPOV. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to suit your POV. Notfrompedro (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message.

Your response is interesting..

Wikipedia has a section on ‘white privilege’, calling it ‘societal privilege’.

Having the benefit of a private education would therefore logically be a ‘educational privilege’.

This is illustrated by the fact that persons from private schools are over represented at elite universities and in the professions, in terms of the general population.

Therefore, using the same logic as the Wikipedia ‘white privilege’ section stating it gives a person societal privilege, so does having a private education, or to use your phrasing, ‘their educational background gave them a leg up in their career’.

Thank-you.

Truthteller3031 (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you are correct nor not; you have misunderstood how wikipedia works. Editors here are not to do original research or to insert their own point of view or commentary, and what you are doing is both of those things. If you continue to do it, you will be blocked from editing, so please just stop. Melcous (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your message.

I thought facts were allowed in Wikipedia?

If someone has attended a private school that is a fact.

I’ll look into this in more detail, to try to understand what you mean when you stated ‘you misunderstood how Wikipedia works’.

However, are you in effect saying when I make an edit to say the person attended a private school I should save them as a ‘minor edit’ and just give the reason as ‘extra factual information’ and leave it at that rather than mention about ‘personal privilege’?

Thanks in advance for your reply. Truthteller3031 (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue is not your edit summaries, it is the editing itself. As has been explained to you by another editor above, you are adding content for the sole purpose of expressing your opinion about the link between education and privilege. That is not ok, and multiple editors have asked you to stop, so don't do it. The other articles you have mentioned are specifically about that topic and they contain what reliable sources have said about it, which is an entirely different thing. Melcous (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your message.

So I take from what you have said that the issue is the need to provide ‘reliable sources’ for the link between private education and privilege?

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Truthteller3031 (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(a) No, that is not quite the issue. There would need to be reliable sources that make such a link about the specific person whom the article you are wanting to include that information in is about, and it would need to be relevant within the context of the specific article here. (b) And even then, given your editing has been disputed by multiple editors, you would be expected to discuss any proposal to include such information in an article with other editors and seek consensus before simply doing so. Melcous (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your message.

Your last explanation makes it much clearer to me where you are coming from now.

Thanks for clarifying in more detail, I really appreciate it.

I think I’ll take time to reflect on what you have told me.

One last question:

How would one go about ‘ you would be expected to discuss any proposal to include such information in an article with other editors and seek consensus before simply doing so’?

Thanks again. Truthteller3031 (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using the talk page of the article. You can also read at that link about how to use talk pages, including formatting discussions like this so they are much easier to read by using indentation - formatted with colons. Melcous (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message.

I will have a look at that information

Many thanks. Truthteller3031 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]