User talk:Trulyy

Modifying a closed discussion to directly accuse another editor of bad faith

This is to let you know that I have referred this to the administrative notice board Rob Roilen (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I shall do the same for you and your clear disregard for wikipedia's longstanding editing guidelines in favor of your personal opinions. Trulyy (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oi!

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Viva la Vendetta)} 14:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The diffs linked at the AN/I thread by CoffeeCrumbs ([1] and [2]) are obvious severe violations WP:BLP violations which you added and then never came back to reference -- and even reverted someone correctly removing one. Both are tagged as minor edits. In July you put a deliberate hoax in an article. Here you made an article contain an allegation of sexual assault which contradicted the cited source, described this edit as "fixed grammar", and marked it as minor.

I don't think it is possible to stress this enough: editing articles about living people to make unsourced negative claims about them in a way designed to evade detection is not permitted. It is extremely damaging and hurtful to the people it's done to, and furthermore damages the reputation of the site and puts it in legal danger. You have done this repeatedly, over the course of months, in a way that suggests that you're aware it is against the rules but simply do not care, or want to fly under the radar. If I see you do this again I will immediately indefinitely block you. jp×g 🗯️ 18:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to me where I made defamatory statements. I am unaware I did such a thing. Trulyy (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am aware in the past when I was new to editing I incorrectly labeled articles as minor or used an improper edit summary which has been clarified on the notice board. The allegation against deshaun Watson was credible and widely reported. Trulyy (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I cannot see the 'deliberate hoax', as the hyperlink only links to my talk page. Trulyy (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not tried to evade detection, and while I previously, during those edits, was unaware of the extent of sourcing for BLP, all edits I made were true, as can be confirmed, even if I didn't source them. Since then, I have sourced my edits, but please note that while I did make a mistake, no edits I made were defamatory or improper. Trulyy (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the several messages, as I am on mobile and am forgetting to mention certain things. I would just like to reiterate that I cannot see the edits you have referenced, as all the links are to the current versions of the pages and not my edits of them. Trulyy (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has been cleared up by experienced editors, they have observed my edit history and come to the conclusion I have made no bad faith edits, rather was slow to learn the full extent of Wikipedia guidelines when editing at the begenning. No other editor other than CookieCrumbs or Rob Roilen (the latter of which having been indeffed for his arguments against me), and the former of which having had my edits justified by an admin, have accused me of making bad faith or defamatory edits.

Again, observing the edits I've made, while unsourced, which was an honest mistake, none of them were false or defamatory. Trulyy (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry for the drawn out messages as it is harder to formulate arguments on mobile, but I'd like to point out what CoffeeCrumbs said later in the thread in response to me:

I didn't mean to convey the idea that I thought that was your fault; it was simply meant as a general observation. If you will just leave hatted conversations be and be careful with that minor edit checkbox, that's certainly enough for me.

To explain my thinking during those edits, which, are written with NPOV, my understanding was that edits that are short and concise, such as those edits being 1-2 sentences, were considered minor. Trulyy (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit reverting someone correctly removing one, I believe was proper. As npr stated:

Lowry added, “They’ve only found two Springfield residents calling to complain about Haitian [word] — migrants taking geese from ponds.”

Trulyy (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My last request before your response is that you link directly to the edits I made that you are most concerned about and explain why to give me the opportunity to back those edits up and provide sources. Trulyy (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Schazjmd (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please let me know how exactly I violated this policy. Trulyy (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see what the main problem was here in copying directly from a seperate source. I will rewrite using the information using my own words. I do not understand why other words not pertaining to the subject, such as 'allegedly' and 'other crimes" were added back in despite me proving sources both of those things happened. Trulyy (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, pertaining to you adding allegedly before the mention of him traveling to Lanza's house, which, is a fact that both he and the judge have concluded is true.

"A self-made video posted on YouTube showed Riches driving to Lanza’s house, homemade dolls of Lanza and his brother, Ryan Lanza, on the passenger seat. When Riches arrived on the street, he was turned away by a police blockade, the video showed.

“We are truth seekers,” Riches said on the recording, “and we’re going to find out why Adam Lanza was mind-controlled and manipulated to go in and allegedly shoot little kids in Sandy Hook Elementary School, and why this happened.”"

From Times Online. It is not alleged, it is proven.

Trulyy (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Your edit to Jonathan Lee Riches has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Schazjmd (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please let me know what unauthorized copyrighted material was used. Trulyy (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will rewrite the copied sentences in whole using my writing. Trulyy (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with your edits to Jonathan Lee Riches

You copied content directly from the source in this edit.
In this edit and the following edit, your source is the youtube channel, but you added your personal interpretation.
In the same edit, your "source" is a Washington Post article that makes no mention of Riches. You cite the twitter profile of "Magnolia", but the WaPo article doesn't mention "Magnolia" either.

Your task as an editor is to summarize what reliable sources say without slanting them or introducing your own opinion/analysis; see WP:NPOV. Don't add content that makes claims about living people that are not supported by reliable sources.

I have no interest in whether "alleged" is included or not; your edit that removed the word "alleged" deleted the copyvio template, which is not allowed. Schazjmd (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining.

1) I now understand what I did wrong, I would now like to know that since there is a copyvio template, which I am not very familiar with, if I can still write that section completely using my own words while still citing the same search.

2) The YouTube channel is barely covered by the media. A simple observance of the channel brings the conclusion, through both his live streams, commentary, and subject covered, as well as the comments on each one of his videos reflecting his audience, that it is a right-leaning channel.

3) I used 3 sources here. The first is the WAPO article. Aside from the information included there, including the real name of 'Magnolia', a video is included showing someone with an undoubtable resemblance to the individual working with Riches. I cited her Twitter, because, along with her Twitter history, and tweets as recent as 2 weeks ago talking about her work with Project Veritas and it's employees, her bio also says 'Former Project Veritas Core Values Queen'. The last source I cited is an official court document shown by the new york times. In this document, it outlines the members of the case. It includes "Jamie Phillips (aka Magnolia).

Also, please help me understand why removing 'alleged' deleted the copyvio template. Again, I am very new to this subject so it would help a lot to understand what it means pertaining to this situation and what I can / can't to. Thank you. Trulyy (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I completely understand why the writing towards the top of the article was removed, and again, I could use some clarity on whether or not I can add it back in using my own words. The main thing I don't understand, however, is why the text below the newly created 'Career' subsection was removed, as it includes verifiable claims using reliable sources. Trulyy (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the media hasn't covered the channel, it's probably not even worth mentioning, but adding your observation of a characterization of its content is not permitted. Please read WP:BLP and learn about the policies protecting biographies of living people.

Please also read WP:SYNTH. You cannot assemble different sources of bits of information to draw a larger conclusion. Nor is anything Magnolia did of any relevance to this article, unless independent sources draw that connection and pay it attention.

Examine the diff of your edit. You will see that it deleted the template at the top of the article.

If you want to discuss specific aspects of edits here, that's fine and I will be glad to answer questions, but if you restore any content that violates WP:BLP, I will revert it. Schazjmd (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]