User talk:Truth Sayer

September 2016

Hello, I'm AntiCompositeNumber. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Joe Teti seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 21:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Joe Teti. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Marianna251TALK 22:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Joe Teti, you may be blocked from editing. Marianna251TALK 22:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Joe Teti shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Marianna251TALK 22:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Please don't revert again, or they'll block you. Try instead to discuss the issue on talk:Joe Teti. agtx 22:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Joe Teti

Obviously, you feel very strongly about the edits you've been making to this page. However, your edits currently aren't written in an appropriate way for Wikipedia. I strongly recommend that you read these core policies before making any further edits to the page:

You've already gone over the three revert rule, which can result in you being blocked from editing if you continue. I'd like to see you become a productive Wikipedia editor instead, so please take my advice and read the above policies and leave the article alone until you've had a chance to go through them. Another editor has tried to engage you in a discussion on Talk:Joe Teti, so please discuss your proposed edits there. Marianna251TALK 22:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have also deleted the policy-violating text from the article. Your account was clearly created and is being used solely to attack the subject of one of our articles and has been blocked accordingly. It is imperative that you do not continue to post the same accusations on your talk page should you request an unblock or the access to this page will be removed as well.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truth Sayer, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

agtx 01:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[[Hello. I am new to this Wiki page concept. I was trying to edit misinformation on a page concerning a lawsuit I was in along with Mykel Hawke and Joe Teti on the Wiki page: Joe Teti.

I was not aware that multiple edits were not allowed. Someone has said that I am not real. I am quite real and I can and will prove anything you need me to in order to straighten this out. Joe Teti has some defamation in his Wiki page and it is not right legally.

Please help me.

Monique Marie Haina]] 9/27/16

Wikipedia has a number of core policies that are in place to protect its editors and the subjects of our articles. One of these core policies is our Biographies of living persons policy which requires that all information in articles be supported by reliable sources, that it not contain any original research based on an individual's own knowledge or experience, and that all of the information is presented neutrally and without bias to a specific point of view. As your edits were a clear violation of our policies you were blocked from making further edits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a venue to continue real world litigation or to advocate your own position in a personal dispute. If you believe there is defamatory material in the article based on your own personal knowledge you, or your solicitor, can contact Wikipedia's volunteer response team at info-en-q@wikipedia.org, but you cannot use the encyclopedia to further your dispute.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that creating new accounts or editing via IPs to evade this block is also contrary to policy and will result in additional sanctions.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, however, the reason people are allowed to edit Wiki pages is for accuracies. The information posted by the original author was inaccurate and blatant lies. I was providing proof in links and the truth versus the lies that were posted. This in no way is meant to be inflammatory or aggressive. It was merely stating the truth where lies had been posted. I had provided links for proof and reference and not just based on my words. That should be welcomed and not blocked. It is not right to allow lies about people to stand in the public. The man who posted this is trying to hurt good people. There is a lawsuit currently and this could further damage good people. Monique Marie 9/28/16

You may not have meant to be "inflammatory and aggressive" but that is what you have accomplished right from your username, down to to your use of ALL CAPS to emphasize derogatory information and your continued abuse of multiple accounts to attempt to force the disputed and potentially libelous content into the article and its talk page. This account was created to extend your real world conflict to an article, and that is absolutely not permitted. I have provided you with the appropriate contact information for dealing with any perceived inaccuracies, but you cannot continue to post such information on Wikipedia.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you continue continue to use Wikipedia as a platform to make allegations in conjunction with a current lawsuit your talk page access has been revoked. I have clearly directed you to the appropriate venue to discuss any concerns you have regarding specific errors in the article, but you cannot continue to use Wikipedia as a part of your legal dispute.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some Background to this User

I just read this article and looked at the comments. It was obvious that the "Monique Marie" character has a real (unhealthy) problem with this Joe Teti. I knew there was some vandalism at Joe Teti so I looked to see who the worst vandal was. Turns out it was this user. Came here and lo and behold, look who it is! This person has an obvious grudge against the subject of that article and a major conflict of interest. I would watch out for further sockpuppetry. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 05:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]