User talk:Wiki-is-truth

Keep grinding that axe, bud. We know Pete Townshend admitted to viewing child porn on the internet in 1999, when viewing was not even a crime. Only downloading was. There is zero evidence that Pete Townshend downloaded any such images. We do, however, know that Pete Townshend contacted an Internet Watch foundation to report what he had found. We also know he campaigned against the proliferation of child pornography on the internet. These facts are relevant and should be part of the bio. You seem to want to paint this episode in Pete Townshend's life as negatively as possible. Why? What is your problem? Has it ever even occurred to you that you may be castigating a man who was motivated by outrage when he visited that website? Why do you want to stand in the way of an objective and fair look at his arrest that acknowledges that there is more to the story than just the arrest? By wishing for only the arrest and caution to be mentioned, and none of the extenuating circumstances, you're doing nothing more than demonstrating that you want this to be a black stain. Pete Townshend wouldn't even have been arrested if someone in the police hadn't leaked his name to the press. His limited access simply didn't fit the profile of a pedophile. But the tabloid frenzy forced their hand. You're contributing to the witch hunt. Clashwho 10:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Townshend admitted to viewing child porn on the internet in 1999: Townshend admitted accessing a child porn website
viewing was not even a crime. Only downloading was: Do you know how the Internet works? Do you know what the law says? Your comments here suggest the answer to both questions is "no".
There is zero evidence that Pete Townshend downloaded any such images: therefore, Townshend's admission must be that he "incited others to distribute child porn"; or, as the police know it, paid for children to be raped. Do you prefer this implication?
We also know he campaigned against the proliferation of child pornography on the internet: we know he made a claim to have done this; what he actually did was access child pornography websites.
These facts are relevant and should be part of the bio: I believe the bio makes statements about Townshend's charidee work
Why do you want to stand in the way of an objective and fair look at his arrest that acknowledges that there is more to the story than just the arrest? a) you could not carry out such an objective look, and b) Wikipedia does not tolerate original research. The only objectively verifiable facts are those that appeared in the news, and those that were published by Townshend. The article contains both.
Townshend wouldn't even have been arrested if someone in the police hadn't leaked his name to the press: you work for the police now?

The "new words" comments on Talk:Pete Townshend

I've removed the "New words" section from the talk page, to which you commented, as off-topic and inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway 10:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Pete Townshend. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. :

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Pete Townshend. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 17:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Pete Townshend. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. 1st - stop rewriting to slant the article. 2nd - the Unsourced part of my warning was for the unsourced component. If you make complex edits in a single hit, they all have to be reversed out at once or fixed in detail. Since you are CLEARLY intent on making these edits, and clearly many other editors find them improper, I am not going to fix them in detail. sinneed (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hi. Can you try not to edit war on pages, as you are at Pete Townshend? Your edits may have factual basis but they'll be ignored because people won't look beyond their accusations of vandalism. Stop and gather consensus on the talk page; I see you've already been there, which is great. If you have any questions, my talk page is open. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 15:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Phoenix Survivors for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Phoenix Survivors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Survivors until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]