User talk:NeutralityPersonified

Welcome!

Hello, NeutralityPersonified, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - 2/0 (cont.) 00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Investigation

Hi, I noticed that you have been mentioned as a potential sockpuppet of User:TruthfulPerson in an ongoing sockpuppet investigation here[1] and apparently no one bothered to inform you. So consider yourself notified. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Coffee Party USA. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Gobonobo ^T ^C 21:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both at Coffee Party USA and earlier at United States Chamber of Commerce, you have been engaged in edit warring, repeatedly making substantively the same edit over the objections of your fellow volunteers. Please be aware that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, built by consensus among all editors concerned. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Coffee Party USA. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 must 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) 12:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An outsider's view

Just an observation from a disinterested observer. I checked out your comments at Talk:Coffee Party USA. You've made some interesting points, and backed them up with facts and rationale. However, the tone is quite confrontational, and I am unable to ascertain why. I see potential to become a valuable contributor. I also see potential to become indefinitely blocked. If you would like me to elaborate, I will, if not, that's fine as well.--SPhilbrick T 20:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A response to the comments you left on my talk page

Good faith is something taken very seriously at Wikipedia. I take it very seriously. I do not appreciate being informed that I've failed to act in good faith. You are new to Wikipedia, and do not show evidence of understanding how it works, yet you make proclamations as if you were an expert (for example, accusing me of threatening to block you. If you understood how Wikipedia worked, you'd understand I made no such threat.) That's not a good start. Talk pages are owned by Wikipedia, and exist so that user can share information with one another about editing issues. I am doing so. If you want to call it harassment, you can, but I trust you know the Lincoln anecdote involving tails and legs (details upon request).

To summarize:

Back in November, I saw you interacting on a page, and doing some things that were commendable, but some other things that I thought could be viewed as confrontational. I wasn't part of the conversation, I didn't even read it all, but I thought you might be interested in a view from an uninvolved party.
I made an offer - to explain to you why your statements might be viewed as confrontational.
You didn't respond that hour, that day or that week. Two months later, you posted on my talk page.
I view your response as a counter-offer (as they might say in My Cousin Vinny). You didn't either accept or reject my offer to explain why I thought you were confrontational. You laid down a number of conditions I had to meet before I could respond as I had originally offered.
I decline the counter-offer.
My original, good faith offer remains on the table. If you would like to hear from me why I thought your approach could be viewed as confrontational, I'll do it. If your acceptance is contingent on a list of others things I must do first, I'm not interested.
Ball is in your court.--SPhilbrick T 00:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a spoof?

NeutralityPersonified (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Personified's Policy on Good Faith

Good faith criticism consists of fully informing oneself of the relevant circumstances before offering the criticism. Admissions such as "I didn't even read it all, but I thought you might be interested in a view from an uninvolved party" are evidence of extremely BAD faith.

A good example: Suppose there was a Wikipedia article about "The Cafe Party USA" which suggested that the "Cafe Party USA" was a civility-based movement the equivalent in political influence and membership as the Tea Party. Further suppose that the "Cafe Party USA" was in fact an astroturfed organization funded by George Soros-related sources started by an uncivil Tea Party-hater that never ran or elected a single candidate based its popularity and influence on Facebook "likes." Suppose even further that all contributions to the article which pointed out the reality were summarily deleted without comment or explanation, and that the article's sources were almost entirely quotes from the organization's website or leaders, or obscure blog entries. Suppose, finally, that the article's chief editor spent a good deal of time attempting to edit the Tea Party's Wikipedia entry to portray the party's membership as violent and racist.

In this situation, would it be acting in good faith accuse the person attempting to improve the article as "confrontational" -- without doing the slightest research in the editing history of the article or the good faith of the editors protecting it? Would it be good faith to admit you didn't even read the research history? Would it be good faith to suggest you have helpful suggestions on how to more effectively deal with the Cafe Party USA's editors, who simply delete all contribution with no faith at all? NeutralityPersonified (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]