User talk:TruthfulPerson
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Please use the talk page to discuss your changes. Continued reversions by you will get you blocked. Ravensfire (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Michelle Obama has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Tiderolls 23:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Barack and Michelle. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Additionally, please see WP:NOTAFORUM. Talk pages are for discussing specific changes to the article only. Loonymonkey (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
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. I notice that when you edit controversial pages you tend to push a conservative point of view. Be warned that this nor a liberal POV will not take you very far here on Wikipedia. tommy talk 02:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive editing
Please consider your editing activities carefully. Comments such as I think what you meant to say, Abrazame, is that you're a Wikipedia newbie with no clue as to what WP:Weight and WP:Source mean and Failure to reply with result in the deletion of the Kapiolani claim and addition of the third grade Noelani claim. are not collegial and are definitely against the policies and spirit of Wikipedia. I commented in direct response to those two edits at Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:Early life and career of Barack Obama, but I am adding some comments here in an attempt to avoid further conflict.
You are entitled to your opinions. You are welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, your user name and your editing habits seem to indicate that you are trying to push particular theories and/or points of view that are not verifiable in reliable sources. If that continues, it will present a problem which will likely result in either a topic ban or an outright block.
I've seen this happen before, and the usual claims of protest include "censorship", "liberal bias", and "but it's the truth". None of these are especially real or relevant. Censorship is not the goal, although edits must fall within policies (largely covered in WP:FIVE). Some people feel that when they are told they cannot include information in an article, it's censorship. However, this is not a "free speech" forum, it's an encyclopedia, and it has standards and policies that must be followed. Liberal bias is a philosophical debate that can never be fully resolved and is beside the point; one man's "liberal" is another man's "centrist". "It's the truth" is a total non-starter around here, because Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.
There are administrators around here who would block you directly for your first comment above, as it is a direct personal attack. (In addition, for your information, the editor you attacked is far from a newbie around here.) There are also administrators who would block you for making the threat linked above, which amounts to "do it my way or face the consequences" and would fall under WP:TEND. There are editors who would look at both of those comments, within 30 minutes of each other, and block you for being WP:DISRUPTIVE.
And, there are administrators who will take the time to point out that these edits are not appropriate and appeal to you to find a way to contribute constructively. Your long-term editing focus on a very narrow point of view has been met with community resistance at every turn. If you wish to contribute, please be more respectful of how Wikipedia works; otherwise, you may find yourself unable to contribute.
Finally, as a courtesy to other editors, please be sure to include your signature on any talk page you edit, by adding ~~~~ after your comments. It helps people understand who said what and when, without having to deal with long signatures added after the fact by a bot. Frank | talk 09:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Helpful Tip
I notice that you seem a little dissatisified with Wikipedia's current application of policy, and some POV disputes. Users have been disrupting your changes and removing valid information from pages. I may have a place that has a more friendly disposition to the facts you are trying to put forward. It is called Conservapedia. As you mave have guessed Conservapedia is a Christain Conservative encyclopedia, it was founded some years ago as a reaction to the Liberal bias often pushed in Wikipedia, it presents itself as "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". You may find that Conservaspedia is a bit more friendly to the things you attempted to say on Wikipedia.
Think about it.
I'm sure you'll make the right choice. 75.53.220.34 (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hey Truthful, you don't really personally believe in this neo-birthism silliness, do you? Its like the opposite side of the coin of Dan Rather and the fake National Guard memos.--Milowent (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Personal attacks and commentary
(Copied by Xenophrenic from an article talk page for further discussion here.)
Xenophrenic, if you ever delete any of my commentary again on the the "Not a Forum" grounds I'll reciprocate in kind, and then some. I've done nothing but correct the most egregious mischaracterizations inserted into the article and tried to add some balance. It's quite embarrassing how this article does nothing but serve as a forum for Annabel Park and the official positions of her supposed "movement."
- Hi, TruthfulPerson. Please review WP:NPA. You'll note that we are required to comment on the edits, not the editors. Article talk pages are for discussion of article improvement, and not for your opinions about other editors. Your constructive edits to the article are welcome, but please engage in discussion instead of edit warring of edits that are disputed. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk)
- You're lucky the admin saw your post first. You would received a warning otherwise. --Morenooso (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive editing
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Coffee Party USA. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Vera Baker
I have nominated Vera Baker, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vera Baker. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. NW (Talk) 18:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
May 2010
Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vera Baker. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ironholds (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
And if you would, please take care when replying to others. You initially did this, which placed your comment between Ironhold's comment and his sig, and didn't sign yourself, which made it look like he was talking to himself. I have fixed it as such. When you reply to someone, just add another (:) to indent (that part you had right) under/after the previous person's signature, and then sign with 4 tildes (~). Thanks. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Limpbizkit1848 (talk • contribs)
Articles for deletion nomination of Molly Hagerty
I have nominated Molly Hagerty, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, although I have not credibly explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Hagerty. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Timneu22 · talk 14:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Silly. The scandal has received national and international coverage at the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, the Guardian and every paper and online source in between. There's no reason for a news blackout at Wikipedia -- the only logical explanation is that you're a paid Democratic operative working for Al Gore acting in bad faith to suppress the story. (I'm not the least bit interested in entering into a
"discussion" with someone as dishonest as you, thanks anyway. Goodbye, and don't come back).