User talk:Truexfalse

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Truexfalse! Thank you for your contributions. I am 1997kB and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018[edit]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Acroterion. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Alexis Tsipras. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Alexis Tsipras. Doug Weller talk 20:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. And WP:CITE. Sources are required to be in the article. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018[edit]

Your recent editing history 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 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. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Amortias (T)(C) 20:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plevris[edit]

Besides the fact he isn't a historian, we would rarely use a far right or far left author as a source for facts. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, most people would disagree with you. The problem is that his books are way too factual for some people who get offended easily ( the Greek left) so they try to intimidate him and call him a “neo-Nazi” while he never expressed sympathy for Adolf Hitler.He is indeed a holocaust denier but never expressed support for Hitler. The whole article on Wikipedia about him is based on emotional outbursts by the “tolerant liberal left” because he is “spreading pain” towards those who live in an imaginary and utopian world Truexfalse (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. After the end of your previous block for edit warring you resumed your edit warring at Coati, which you had previously done using both this account and IP editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #21158 was submitted on Apr 10, 2018 12:38:51. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at National Liberation Front (Greece), you may be blocked from editing. Constantine ✍ 16:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for the Balkans, broadly construed[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Note this includes Greece. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Black Lives Matter[edit]

You've been reverted, by my count, five times by four different editors - that's a strong signal that it is time to start a discussion on the talk page. Repeatedly reverting other's edits without achieving a consensus is called edit warring. It's counterproductive, and it's likely to get you blocked or banned. If you want to avoid that outcome, stop reverting and start a discussion. Just to be totally clear: there's a bright line rule prohibiting more than 3 reverts in 24 hours by a single editor. You're right on that line, and if you revert again, you'll very likely end up getting blocked. Nblund^talk 14:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will take it to the talk page soon. User:Truexfalse

Hey Just a reminder about the WP:3RR rule. I don't think you ever actually brought this to the talk page, and it seems like you're now edit warring over the exact same stuff now. Don't do that. You'll get blocked. Nblund^talk 21:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KangsongNET moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, KangsongNET, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Britishfinance (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: KangsongNET (January 13)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DannyS712 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:KangsongNET and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:KangsongNET, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DannyS712 (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Truexfalse! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DannyS712 (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: KangsongNET (January 20)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jovanmilic97 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:KangsongNET and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:KangsongNET, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:KangsongNET[edit]

Hello, Truexfalse. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "KangsongNET".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Masum Reza^📞 20:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]